Diverting these funds for public projects or commercial schemes would defeat the very purpose of the Act and also go against the wishes of the donors.
Published Aug 26, 2025 | 9:36 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 26, 2025 | 9:36 PM
Madras High Court. (Wikimedia)
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on Tuesday, 26 August, has struck down Government Orders that permitted the construction of marriage halls using surplus funds from temples in different locations.
During the recent Budget session, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Minister P.K. Sekarbabu had announced in the Assembly that ₹80 crore of surplus funds from 27 temples would be used to build marriage halls. These halls were planned to be rented out for public use.
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and G. Arul Murugan observed that the essence of charity, which is central to Hindu religion, was absent in the scheme. They held that without any element of charity, the proposal could not be classified as serving a “religious purpose” under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. On this ground, the Government Orders lost their validity.
The court made it clear that the government has no power to use temple funds for purposes other than those intended by devotees. According to the judges, temple money and properties are donated out of faith and spiritual attachment, and they must be used only for the maintenance, development, and religious activities of the temple.
Diverting these funds for public projects or commercial schemes would defeat the very purpose of the Act and also go against the wishes of the donors.
The Bench further noted that the money and properties offered to a temple belong legally to the presiding deity. In law, a deity is considered a minor, and therefore the High Court, as parens patriae (protector of minors), is duty-bound to safeguard the interests of the deity and temple assets.
Based on these observations, the judges concluded that constructing marriage halls for rent cannot be considered a religious purpose. They ruled that the government’s decision violated the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Consequently, the court allowed the batch of petitions filed against the scheme and quashed the Government Orders.
