Introduction
It is most significant to note that while ruling on a most vital legal point pertaining to the mismanagement in denominational temples, the Madras High Court in a most progressive, pragmatic, pertinent, praiseworthy and persuasive judgment titled Dr KJ Renuka v. K Raghavendhar Karthik & Ors. in W.A. No.3103 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.25262 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:MHC:2739 that was pronounced finally on 17.11.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms 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. For the uninitiated and for the benefit of my esteemed readers, it must be laid bare that denominational temples are usually managed and run by a specific religious denomination or sect rather than by general public or the government. It must be noted that the Madras High Court was dealing with a case that pertained to Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimma Perumal temple.
Background Of The Case
It is worth paying attention that the Madras High Court delivered the ruling while setting aside a single-Judge order that had directed registration of a lease deed pertaining to property owned by Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimma Perumal Temple in West Saidapet. Interestingly enough, the appeal against the single-Judge judgment was filed by a women devotee who had not been involved in the original petition. She objected to the lease that was 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 the market levels.
Key Objections Raised By The Devotee
- Lease deed did not specify the lease period.
- Earlier terms were retained without revision.
- Proposed rent was significantly below market levels.
- Potential financial loss to the temple.
Judgment Overview
At the very outset, this remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice SM Subramaniam for himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Mohammed Shaffiq sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1 that, “Under assail is writ order dated 26.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.10813 of 2024. Writ appellant is not a party to the writ proceedings and by securing leave from this Court instituted the present intra-court appeal.”
Division Bench Perspective
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 laying bare succinctly that, “The first respondent filed writ proceedings seeking a direction to the Sub Registrar (Joint II), Saidapet, Chennai – 15 to register the lease deed submitted on 03.11.2023. Writ Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Sub Registrar to register the document within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Having aggrieved, appellant would submit that lease deed has been improperly drafted, term of lease has not been mentioned and the lease amount is also meagre and not commensurate with the market rent prevailing in that locality. Thus, lease deed registered would cause loss to sixth respondent temple viz., Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimma Perumal Temple and the temple is receiving public contribution and therefore, the appellant has chosen to file present writ appeal.”
Findings On Maladministration
Do note, the Division Bench then notes in para 7 that, “Regarding mal-administration/illegality in dealing with the properties, reports have been filed by the authorities of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department before this Court. Right to administer religious institution is protected under the Article 26 of Constitution of India. However, allegations regarding mal-administration, illegality in dealing with properties, if any, may be dealt with by the State under the provisions of the Act and Rules. In the present case, the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department filed reports citing mal-administration and irregularities.”
Core Holding
Most significantly and so also most rationally, the Division Bench then encapsulates in para 8 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “However, learned counsel for appellant would submit that several other illegalities and allegations placed by the appellant before the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department are yet to be addressed. As far as writ order impugned is concerned, subject lease deed itself is challenged on the ground that it is not a new lease but renewal of lease causing detriment to the interest of the temple’s income. That being so, these allegations are to be enquired into and the interest of the institution is to be protected by the State. However, 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.”
Case Law Reference
It is worth noting that the Division Bench while citing relevant case law notes in para 9 that, “Appellant or any other devotee is at liberty to submit details regarding the properties, irregularities, illegalities or mal-administration etc., In the case of Marua Dei and Others vs. Muralidhar Nanda and Others (1999) 1 SCC 377, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down tests to ascertain whether the religious institution assumes public character so as to declare it as public institution and State will have authority to initiate all appropriate actions. Paragraph No.22 of the judgment reads as under:
Tests for Determining Public Character of Religious Institution
| Test | Description (as understood from Supreme Court observation) |
|---|---|
| Origin Test | Whether the institution was founded for public benefit. |
| Management Test | Whether the public participates in management or administration. |
| Usage Test | Whether the public has unrestricted access for worship. |
| Financial Test | Whether the institution receives public donations or offerings. |
22. Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs. Rannchhoddas Kalidas & Ors.
This Court, after considering the earlier decisions on this aspect, held as follows:-
“Though most of the present day Hindu public temples have been found as public temples, there are instances of private temples becoming public temples in course of time. Some of the private temples have acquired great deal of religious reputation either because of the eminence of its founder or because of other circumstances. They have attracted large number of devotees. Gradually in course of time they have become public temples. Public temples are generally built or raised by the public and the deity installed to enable the members of the public or a section thereof to offer worship. In such a case the temple would clearly be a public temple- If a temple is proved to have originated as a public temple, nothing more is necessary to be proved to show that it is a public temple but if a temple is proved to have originated as a private temple or its origin is unknown or lost in antiquity then there must be proof to show that it is being used as a public temple. In such cases the true character of the particular temple is decided on the basis of various circumstances. In those case the courts have to address themselves to various questions such as:-
Questions Considered for Determining Temple Character
Question No. Consideration (1) Is the temple built in such imposing manner that it may prima facie appear to be a public temple? (2) Are the members of the public entitled to worship in that temple as of right? (3) Are the temple expenses met from the contributions made by the public? (4) Whether the saves and utsavas conducted in the temple are those usually conducted in public temples? (5) Have the management as well as the devotees been treating that temple as a public temple? 16. Though the appearance of a temple is a relevant circumstance, it is by no means a decisive one. The architecture of temples differs from place to place. The circumstance that the public or a section thereof have been regularly worshipping in the temple as a matter of course and they can take part in the festivals and ceremonies conducted in that temple apparently as a matter of right is a strong piece of evidence to establish the public character of the temple. If votive offerings are being made by the public in the usual course and if the expenses of the temple are met by public contribution, it is safe to presume that the temple in question is a public temple.
Factors Establishing Public vs. Private Temples
- Origin of the temple
- Manner in which its affairs are managed
- Nature and extent of gifts received
- Rights exercised by devotees in regard to worship
- Consciousness of the manager regarding temple character
- Consciousness of devotees about public nature of temple
In Lakshmana V. Subramania the Judicial Committee was dealing with a temple which was initially a private temple. The Mahant of this temple opened it on certain days in each week to the Hindu public free to worship in the greater part of the temple, and on payment of fees in one part only. The income thus received by the Mahant was utilised by him primarily to meet the expenses of the temple and the balance went to support the Mahant and his family. The Privy Council held that the conduct of the Mahant showed that he had held out and represented to the Hindu public that the temple was a public temple at which all Hindus might worship and the inference was, therefore, that he had dedicated it to the public.
In Mundancheri Koman v. Achutan Nair, the Judicial Committee again observed that the decision of the case would depend on the inferences to be derived from the evidence as to the way in which the temple endowments had been dealt with and from the evidence as to the public user of the temples. Their Lordships were satisfied that the documentary evidence in the case conclusively showed that the properties standing in the name of the temples belonged to the temples and that the position of the manager of the temples was that of a trustee. Their Lordships further, added that if it had been shown that the temples had originally been private temples they would have been slow to hold that the admission of the public in later times possibly owing to altered conditions would affect the private character of the trusts.
In Deoki Nandan V. Murlidar, this Court observed that the issue whether a religious endowment is a public or a private one is a mixed question of law and fact, the decision of which must depend on the application of legal concepts of a public and private endowment to the facts found. Therein it was further observed that the distinction between a public and private endowment is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries, which means the worshippers are specific individuals and in the later the general public or class thereof. In that case the plaintiff sought to establish the true scope of the dedication from the user of the temple by the public.
In Narayan Bhagwant Rao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal. Vinayak Gosavi & Ors., this Court held that the vastness of the temple, the mode of its construction, the long user of the public as of right, grant of land and cash by the Rulers taken along with other relevant factors in that case were consistent only with the public nature of the temple.”
The above judgment was followed by this Court in Pratapsinhji N. Desai (supra).””
Final Directions Issued by the Division Bench
Finally, the Division Bench then draws the curtains of this robust judgment by directing and holding in para 10 that, “In view of above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:
Direction 1
(1)Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai is directed to appoint an officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into allegations in respect of properties, financial irregularities raised by the parties and other allegations and initiate all appropriate actions by following the procedures as contemplated and by affording opportunity to all the parties.
Direction 2
(2)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 mal-administration, illegality or irregularity.
Direction 3
(3)Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is directed to complete the inquiry in all respects within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time Commissioner takes a decision and pass orders, no further alienation/lease of property or creation of any interest is to be made by the temple administration.
Accordingly, impugned writ order dated 26.06.2024 in W.P.No.10813 of 2024 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
