RAMA.RAVIKUMAR V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS W.P(MD)NOS.5893, 15498, 17666, 21966 & 21967 OF 2025:

DATE: 19/08/2025

COURT: High Court of Madras

BENCH: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice G. Arul Murugan

FACTS:

The Tamil Nadu Government, through the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR\&CE) Department, announced during the Budget Speech that 27 marriage halls would be constructed using temple funds, at a total cost of Rs.80 crores. Among these, Arulmigu Kaalakatheeswarar Abirami Amman Temple was identified for such construction. Based on this announcement, Government Orders (GOs) were issued, authorizing the use of surplus temple funds for the project. The plan provided that these marriage halls would not be free for public use but would be rented out to Hindus for conducting marriage ceremonies, generating revenue from temple funds.

Petitioners challenged the GOs before the High Court, contending that the Government lacked the jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to utilize temple funds for constructing commercial marriage halls. They argued that temple funds, being donations and properties dedicated to the deity by devotees, were to be exclusively utilized for religious and charitable purposes and not diverted for revenue-generating activities. The State countered that the construction was justified as a benefit to the Hindu community, but admitted that no statutory procedure under the Act or Rules was followed before passing the orders.

ISSUES:

The central issue was whether the Tamil Nadu Government had the authority under the HR\&CE Act, 1959 to divert surplus temple funds for the construction of marriage halls to be rented out for commercial purposes, and whether such use of temple funds could be classified as a "religious purpose" under Section 66 of the Act.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court quashed the impugned Government Orders and allowed the writ petitions, holding that the decision to construct revenue-generating marriage halls using surplus temple funds violated the HR\&CE Act, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Court held that temple funds belong to the deity and must be used strictly for religious or charitable purposes, and not for commercial ventures.

The Court reasoned that under Hindu law principles and Section 66 of the HR\&CE Act, surplus temple funds must be confined to religious or charitable uses and cannot be diverted to commercial or profit-making ventures. It emphasized that “religious purposes” under Hindu law are those that conduce to religious merit, rooted in Shastraic injunctions and charitable intent, not financial gain. While Hindu marriages are regarded as a sacrament, the construction of marriage halls for rental purposes lacks any charitable element, as the scheme was designed to generate income rather than provide free facilities to the poor or needy. The Court further highlighted that Section 36-A of the Act already provides for assistance in conducting marriages of poor Hindus, but does not authorize the construction of halls for general commercial renting.

The Court also noted procedural violations under the Utilization of Surplus Funds Rules, 1960, which mandate proposals, scrutiny, objections, and public notice before diverting surplus funds. None of these statutory safeguards were followed before announcing and issuing the GOs. The Court observed that temple funds and properties belong to the deity, and devotees donate with the expectation that their contributions will serve religious or charitable objectives, not commercial schemes. Allowing such diversion would defeat the object of the Act, risk misuse by administrators, and infringe upon the fundamental rights of devotees to practice their religion as intended. Consequently, the Court held that the Government, being secular, had no authority to expand the scope of “religious purposes” to justify profit-oriented projects like marriage halls.

ANALYSIS:

The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the sanctity and intended use of temple funds, emphasizing that donations made by devotees are meant exclusively for religious and charitable purposes. By striking down the Government Orders, the Court reinforced the principle that surplus funds of temples cannot be arbitrarily diverted for profit-making or commercial ventures, even under the guise of public welfare or community benefit. The ruling highlights the balance between state oversight and religious autonomy, clarifying that the HR\&CE Department’s powers are limited to ensuring proper maintenance, administration, and lawful utilization of temple assets, and do not extend to generating revenue through activities like renting out marriage halls.

The decision also demonstrates the significance of procedural compliance when dealing with temple funds, as prescribed under the Utilization of Surplus Funds Rules, 1960. The Court noted that proposals, scrutiny, publication, and opportunity for objections are essential safeguards to protect the interests of devotees and prevent misappropriation of sacred resources. By emphasizing the non-commercial character of religious purposes, the judgment preserves both the intent of donors and the broader principles of Hindu law concerning charity and religious merit. Furthermore, it reinforces the constitutional expectation that a secular government must respect religious institutions and not exploit their resources for revenue-generating schemes, ensuring that the fundamental rights of the devotees are upheld.