State Control of Temples

Why in the News?

A recent controversy surrounding the sacred offering of Tirupati Laddu at the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple has brought attention to the issue of government control over Hindu temples.

• Adulterating ghee in the laddus has sparked calls for removing state interference from temple management.

Tirumala Venkateswara (Tirupati Balaji) Temple:

• Located in Tirumala, Andhra Pradesh, on Venkata Hill, one of the seven hills of Tirumala Hills.
• The temple is dedicated to Lord Venkateswara, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu.
• It has a rich heritage, with contributions from South Indian dynasties such as the Pallavas, Cholas, and Vijayanagara rulers.

Features traditional South Indian temple architecture, including a towering gopuram (gateway) and intricate carvings.

• A unique practice is the donation of hair by devotees as an offering.

How are Places of Worship Managed in India?

Hindu Temples:

Government Control: Most Hindu temples are governed by state laws, with several states enacting regulations that place temple administration under government control.

• • • For instance, Tamil Nadu’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department manages temples, including finances and appointments of temple heads.
    • In Andhra Pradesh, the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), responsible for managing the Tirupati Temple, is also under state oversight.

Income Utilization: Revenue from large temples is often used to support smaller temples and fund social welfare programs, such as hospitals, orphanages, and schools.

Legal Framework: State intervention is permitted under Article 25(2) of the Indian Constitution, allowing regulation of economic and social activities related to religious practices to ensure transparency and accountability.

• • • Hindu temples account for the majority of India’s approximately 30 lakh places of worship (Census 2011).

Muslim and Christian Places of Worship:

• • Community Management: These are typically overseen by community boards or trusts, independent of government control, enabling decentralized governance.

Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist Temples:

• • Management varies by state, with a mix of government regulation and community involvement.

State Legislation and Intervention:

Religious endowments fall under the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, allowing both the Centre and states to legislate. As a result, regulations vary across states.

Some states, such as Jammu and Kashmir, have specific laws like the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, outlining temple administration and funding.

Historical Background of State Regulation of Temples:

• Colonial Legislation: Between 1810 and 1817, the East India Company enacted laws in Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, allowing government interference in temple administration to prevent income misappropriation.
• Religious Endowments Act (1863): The British government aimed to secularize temple management by transferring control to committees while maintaining legal oversight through laws like the Civil Procedure Code and Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (1920).
• Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (1925): Created the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, allowing provincial governments to legislate temple matters and oversee administration.
• Post-Independence:
  • In 1950, the Law Commission of India recommended laws to prevent the misuse of temple funds, leading to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (TN HR&CE) Act, 1951, which established a department for temple management.
  • The Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, was passed around the same time to regulate religious institutions in Bihar.

Constitutional Provisions for State Regulation of Religion:

• Article 25:

Article 25(1) guarantees the freedom to practice, profess, and propagate one’s religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.

Article 25(2) permits the state to regulate economic, financial, political, or secular activities related to religious practices and to pass laws for social welfare, reform, and opening Hindu religious institutions to all castes.

• • • Regulation of secular aspects is distinct from regulating access to places of worship.

Judicial Precedents for State Management of Religion:

Shirur Mutt Case (1954): The Supreme Court ruled that religious institutions have the right to independently manage their affairs, provided they do not violate public order, morality, or health. The state can regulate religious administration.

Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Case (1954): The Supreme Court held that religious practices are protected under Article 25, but the state can regulate the administration of religious properties.

Pannalal Bansilal Pitti Case (1996): The Supreme Court upheld laws abolishing hereditary temple management rights and rejected the claim that such laws should apply to all religions equally.

Stanislaus Case (1977): The Supreme Court ruled that the right to propagate religion does not include the right to convert others, upholding anti-conversion laws.

Demands for Freeing Temples from Government Control:

• RSS Resolution (1959): The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) passed a resolution demanding Hindu self-management of religious institutions.
• Kashi Vishwanath Temple Case (1959): The Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha (ABPS) called for the return of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple’s management to Hindus.
• Recent Developments (2023): The Madhya Pradesh government began relaxing its oversight of temples, reflecting a growing trend to reduce state control.

Arguments in Favour and Against State Control of Places of Worship:

• Arguments in Favour:
  • Prevents Mismanagement: Government oversight ensures accountability and prevents the misappropriation of temple funds.
  • Access for All Castes: State control helps enforce social reforms, including opening Hindu temples to all castes.
  • Public Welfare: Government supervision ensures temple funds are used for public welfare activities such as hospitals and schools.
  • Protection from Commercialization: State intervention protects temples from being exploited by vested interests.
• Arguments Against:
  • Religious Freedom: Excessive state intervention is viewed as a violation of Article 26, which grants religious groups the right to manage their own affairs.
  • Political Interference: Government control often leads to political manipulation of temple resources.
  • Discrimination: Government control over Hindu temples is seen as discriminatory since similar measures are not applied to other religious institutions.
  • Cultural Autonomy: Temples should reflect local traditions and interests, not state management.

Way Forward:

• Separation of Religious and Administrative Functions: Establishing a clear division between religious and administrative tasks will improve governance.
• Good Governance Principles: A State-level Temple Administration Board, working with a Temple Management Committee (TMC) and local Temple Trusts, can enhance temple administration.
  • The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1991, provides for the creation of such a board.
• Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV): A Temple Development and Promotion Corporation (TDPC) can focus on tourism, temple development, research, IT upgrades, and capacity building.
• Adopting Best Practices: The Devaswom model in Kerala, known for its transparency, can serve as an example for minimizing corruption in temple management.

Explore our Books: https://apnipathshala.com/product-category/books/

Explore Our test Series: https://tests.apnipathshala.com/

FAQs