Online Crowdfunding Not A Healthy Way Of Collecting Donations: Madras High Court Says While Hearing Youtuber Karthik Gopinath's Plea

While hearing Youtuber Karthik Gopinath's plea seeking recognition as a donor to transfer around 30 lakhs rupees that he had collected through "Milaap" for renovating damaged temples, the Madras High Court observed that online crowdfunding may not be a healthy way of collecting donations.

This is not a healthy way of collecting funds. The online system may be helpful in some ways, but it also poses many risks. Here, the petitioner has come forward, but what about others who have collected many and have failed to declare it? Justice PD Audikesavalu asked.

Last year, Karthik posted a video on social media and raised funds through the crowdfunding platform Milaap after learning that the idols in two temples (Periyasamy Hills temple and a private temple in Siruvachur) had been damaged by miscreants. 

The Executive Officer of Siruvachur temple lodged a complaint against him saying that he was not authorized to collect funds for the temple. Based on this, the police had registered a criminal case against Karthik. He was arrested and later released on bail. 

In his present petition, seeking to recognize him as a donor, Karthik said that he was ready to transfer all the money towards temple renovation. He further submitted that it was the temple authorities who were unwilling to take the money from him.

Advocate Raghavachari, appearing for the YouTuber, today informed the court that even the temple management had accepted that Karthik had sought permission to donate money for the renovation but no rejection order was served upon Karthik. He added that every penny was accounted for as every transaction in "Milaap" is through bank transactions.

Advocate Karthikeyan, appearing for the temple management, submitted that the plea for donation was not accepted when it came to light that the money was collected from the public using the temple's name, which was not acceptable. Advocate Arun Natarajan, appearing for HR&CE added that under Rule 5A of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act no person is allowed to collect money in the name of temples. However, Raghavachari contested this and submitted that the rule was not applicable in the present case.

Advocate General R Shunmughasundaram sought the criminal prosecution against Karthik to continue while Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah submitted that the crowdfunding platform Milaap was directed to deposit the fund into the credit of the crime number. 

The court also opined that the money had to be securely deposited before the lower court before hearing the matter further. The court also decided to hear the matter along with another review petition pending before a special bench.

Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v The Executive Officer and others

Case No: WP No. 29836 of 2022