Should Govt Control Temples? Centre Says No, But What Is The SC’s Stance? The Debate Explained

Last Updated:April 22, 2026, 13:58 IST

Centre tells Supreme Court it opposes direct state control of temples, court warns against total autonomy. News18 explains the debate over regulation, access & use of temple funds

The Central government told the Supreme Court on April 21 that it does not support government control over temples, clarifying its stance that religious institutions should not be directly managed by the state.

The government stance, those for and against it, News18 explains.

What the Central government said

The submission was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta before a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant. This bench is currently examining the scope of state authority under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, a reference that arose from the Sabarimala review petitions.

The government’s position focuses on a strict separation between secular management and religious autonomy. The Centre explicitly stated it does not advocate for the direct management of religious bodies by the government. It argued that while Article 25(2) allows the state to regulate secular aspects (like financial and political activities), this should not translate into a permanent state takeover of shrines.

The Solicitor General emphasized that constitutional interpretations must be uniform across all faiths and cannot be viewed through the lens of any single religion.

The Centre highlighted that many Hindu traditions are unique and pluralistic (such as temples that restrict entry to men), and judicial definitions should not force a uniform “straitjacket" on diverse practices.

Total independence? The Supreme Court’s observations

While the Centre pushed for autonomy, the nine-judge bench raised critical concerns about the risks of total independence:

The court cautioned that if denominations are given absolute power to exclude others, it could divide society and negatively impact the inclusive spirit of Hinduism.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted that “everybody must have access to every temple and matha," emphasizing that the state can step in under Article 25(2)(b) to ensure social reform and prevent discrimination.

In related rulings, the court has maintained that temple funds “belong to the deity" and must be used solely for the temple’s interests rather than being diverted for unrelated state or commercial purposes.

Why the debate?

The debate takes place against a backdrop of extensive state involvement in temple administration across India:

Tamil Nadu: Over 30,000 temples are managed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department.

Kerala: Approximately 3,000 temples are under state-supervised Devaswom Boards (e.g., Travancore Devaswom Board).

Andhra Pradesh: The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) board manages the world-famous Balaji temple under state oversight.

What is the legal and constitutional framework?

The Indian government derives its power to regulate temples from specific constitutional provisions:

• Article 25(2): Allows the state to regulate “economic, financial, political or other secular activities" associated with religious practice.
• Article 26: Grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
• Judicial Rulings: In the Shirur Mutt case (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that while the state can regulate secular aspects (like finance), it cannot interfere in purely religious rituals. Later, in the Chidambaram Nataraja Temple case (2014), the Court emphasized that government takeovers must be for a limited period to remedy specific mismanagement.

Those for government control

Proponents believe state oversight is necessary to ensure accountability and social equity. State-appointed boards help prevent the misappropriation of temple funds and ensure donations are used for their intended purposes, according to reports.

Government intervention has been used to enforce inclusive practices, such as ensuring entry for all castes and challenging hereditary priesthood. Surplus revenue from large temples often funds schools, hospitals, and community infrastructure.

The state provides resources for the conservation and maintenance of ancient temple structures.

Those against government control

Critics argue that the current system is discriminatory and inefficient.

Many argue that Hindu temples are uniquely subject to state control while mosques, churches, and gurdwaras are largely self-managed.

Devotees often object to temple revenue being used for non-religious state projects or general welfare instead of religious maintenance.

Government-appointed officials may lack the religious understanding or personal devotion required to manage sacred spaces effectively. State control can lead to temple boards becoming “political parking lots" where appointments are made for electoral gains rather than merit.

What is the way forward?

Independent Trusts: Creating boards comprising local religious leaders, community representatives, and experts to manage affairs while the state maintains only an oversight role.

The Devaswom Model: Some suggest a model similar to Kerala’s, where statutory boards manage temples but with increased emphasis on transparency and reduced political influence.

Devotee Councils: Establishing local councils to advise on rituals and festivals, giving the religious community more say in their traditions.

KEY FAQs

Should governments control temples, according to the Centre?

The Union government has argued that the state should not manage religious institutions, including temples, and has favoured greater autonomy for devotees and trusts in administering them.

What is the Supreme Court’s stance?

The Supreme Court of India has held that the state can regulate secular aspects (like finances and administration) of temples to prevent mismanagement, but cannot interfere in essential religious practices.

Why is this debate contentious?

Critics say state control of Hindu temples (under various state laws) is unequal compared to other religions, while supporters argue oversight is needed to ensure transparency and prevent misuse of temple funds.

With agency inputs

News explainers Should Govt Control Temples? Centre Says No, But What Is The SC’s Stance? The Debate Explained

Read More