Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Alleging Deputation of Government Employees For Administration Of Hindu Temples In Tamil Nadu

Senior Advocate, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the act of deputing government servants 'wipes out the separation of State and religion'. As per Section 55(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, trustees of respective temples are the sole authorities to appoint employees for the administration of the temples. The petition highlights that in 19,000 non-hereditary temples in the State of Tamil Nadu no trustees have been appointed by the concerned authorities in the past 11 years.

Mr. Vaidyanathan emphasised that due to the inaction of the State Government trustees have not been appointed for more than a decade and it is now trying to fill that void by deputing Government employees, thus, rendering the provisions of the legislation otiose.

"Trustees have not been appointed because of the inaction of the Govt, now they have brought in Government employees."

He added that the temples in the State of Tamil Nadu are being treated as Government Departments -

"In a secular State temples cannot be treated as a part of the Government. It is unfortunate that 46,000 temples are now under the control of the State. We have challenged the validity of that. Now, the Government employees are being sent there. It is being treated as a department of the Government."

Curious, Justice Chandrachud enquired, "We wanted to understand what happens then….how many Govt. employees have been deputed to the temples now?"

Mr. Vaidyanathan submitted that he would file an additional affidavit in this regard. Accordingly, making the notice returnable in six weeks, the Bench noted that -

"Senior Advocate, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan states that a further affidavit would be filed indicting- (1) number of temples in Tamil Nadu where no trustees are appointed;

(2) number of temples in which Govt. officials have been deputed."

It also granted 3 weeks' time to the State and the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department of the State Government to file their counter affidavit.

Elaborating on the issue, Mr. Vaidyanathan submitted that in hereditary temples the Government does not make any appointments. The interference of the Government is only with respect to administration of the non-hereditary temples. The same was assailed by the Senior Advocate.

Justice Chandrachud noted, "In many States in India that is permissible because, you know, to prevent misuse of the funds of the temple."

Considering the issue at hand, the Judge reckoned that there is another approach to the concern of the petition. He indicated that if Government employees are deputed to look after the administration of the temples, it would take away from their precious time that they could have spent resolving other pressing affairs.

"There is another way of looking at it, that Govt. officers have other work - looking at schools, roads, public health centres.."

To provide a real sense of the extent of power asserted by State Governments on temples in the absence of trustees, Advocate, Mr. J. Sai Deepak pointed out that in a matter before the Bench led by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court, in the absence of temple trustees the Government had taken a decision to melt gold belonging to a temple. He submitted that the High Court held that this is a decision that cannot be taken by the Government, as per law.

Justice Chandrachud was of the opinion, "This is an invincible task to appoint almost 20,000 trustees."

Mr. Vaidyanathan emphasised that all temples might not require trustees. He submitted, "There are 46,000 temples, out of which about 42,000 temples have annual income of less than INR 10,000."

Agreeing with the submission made by the Senior Advocate, Justice Chandrachud stated that the Government should take a policy decision that they would appoint trustees only in temples with income above a certain threshold, where there is a possibility of funds being misused.

"These are really temples in small villages, so they have to take a policy decision and say that we are not going to appoint trustees for every temple, let the local community run those temples. Those that have an income above the threshold and there is a feeling that money should not be misused…"

Mr. Vaidyanathan submitted that 4 types of temples (heritage temples, temples with large footfalls, temples with large income and temples with large endowment) may need Government's assistance for administration.

The petition alleges that the State Government and the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department is appointing Government employees in addition to the Executive Officers, who are already entrusted with the administration of the temples. It is averred that the liability of the salaries and all other benefits of these Government employees are also being imposed on the temple.

It appears that the appointments of Government officers are being made under Rule 110(b)(xx) of the Fundamental Rules (of Tamil Nadu Government), 1922, which postulates that the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is the competent person to sanction the deputation of Executive Officers (Grade 01) and the Superintendents including Inspectors, Managers, Head Clerks belonging to Ministerial Service in the said Department on 'Foreign Service' to any religious institution within the State. The petition challenges the reliance on Rule 110(b)(xx) on the ground that appointments under the said provision are to be made as an exceptional measure and only when the requirements set out in Rule 111 are met.

On 21.10.2020, the petitioner had sent representation to the respondents apprising them that the nature of appointment to Hindu Temples on "foreign service" is not permissible in law. On 12.06.2021, the Commissioner issued a communication justifying the appointments, which the petition assails. On 24.08.2021, the Commissioner appointed 8 regional audit officers in the Hindu Temples.

The petition beseeches the Bench to issue direction for reversion of the appointments of the Government employees bestowed with the responsibility of administration of non-hereditary Hindu Temples; to refund the salaries, allowances and other benefits; and to also restrain the Government from making further appointments of such nature.

A Writ petition raising the said issues was filed before the Madras High Court which was eventually dismissed for the want of merits.

The petition has been filed through KMNP Law AoR.

[Case Status: T.R. Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu And Anr.]

Click Here To Read/Download Order