State can probe mismanagement of assets in denominational temples receiving public donations: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department has the authority to investigate allegations of mismanagement in denominational temples when they receive public donations [KJ Renuka v. K Raghavendhar Karthik & Ors.]

Denominational temples are usually managed by a specific religious denomination or sect rather than by general public or the government. 

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Marua Dei v. Muralidhar Nanda (1999), a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that factors such as public donations, public access and the sources of financial support must be considered when determining whether a temple functions as a public institution.

"Right to administer religious institution and religious practices are to be protected and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is not empowered to interfere with the religious practices prevailing in the temple. In respect of dealing with properties and financial irregularities, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is bound to conduct inspection/enquiry and initiate all appropriate actions by following the procedures and by affording opportunity to all the parties, since contributions/donations are being received from general public," the Court said.

The Court delivered the ruling while setting aside a single-judge order that had directed registration of a lease deed relating to property owned by Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimma Perumal Temple in West Saidapet.

The appeal against the single-judge decision was filed by a devotee who had not been involved in the original petition. She objected to the lease presented for registration, noting that it did not specify the lease period, retained earlier terms without revision and that the proposed rent was significantly below market levels.

She said the arrangement effectively allowed the tenant to continue occupying the property on terms that did not serve the temple’s interests.

She also highlighted that the temple owned several other properties and that concerns about their management had been raised with the authorities in the past.

The temple’s managing committee argued that it was a denominational institution and therefore, had a constitutional right under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) to manage its operations without interference from the HR&CE Department.

According to the committee, registering the lease was merely an administrative formality and the department had no authority to review its internal decisions.

The department, however, informed the Court that the temple had previously been found to receive offerings from the general public and not solely from members of the denomination. On this basis, it said the management could not claim complete autonomy.

Considering the submissions, the bench said that the allegations are required to be enquired into and the interest of the institution is to be protected by the State.

The Court, thus, directed the HR&CE Commissioner to appoint a senior officer, not below the rank of Additional Commissioner, to probe the allegations relating to the temple properties and financial transactions. The inquiry has been ordered to be completed within four months.

"Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is directed to examine the facts and status prevailing in the subject temple in the context of the test contemplated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marua Dei’s case cited supra and initiate appropriate actions. After ascertaining these facts, Commissioner shall proceed against the temple in the manner contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder in the event of any maladministration, illegality or irregularity," the Court ordered.

It further directed the temple administration not to issue any new leases, create any liabilities on the properties, or carry out transactions involving temple assets until the inquiry report is submitted.

The appellant, KJ Renuka, was represented by advocates Vineet Subramani and NJ Sagayaraj.

The first respondent, K Raghavendhar Karthik, was represented by advocates A Muthukumar and TG Balachandran. Advocates DBR Prabhu appeared for other respondents.

The temple was represented by Senior Counsel V Raghavachari and advocate L Dhamodharan.

Special Government Pleaders NRR Arun Natarajan and U Baranidharan appeared for the HR&CE Board and the Sub-Registrar.

[Read Judgment]