TEMPLE REGULATION IN INDIA

Posted 15 Apr 2024

4 min read

Why in the news?

Karnataka Legislative Assembly passed the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024 to regulate temples in the state.

More on the news

The new bill amends the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, of 1997.
The Bill mandates that the government will collect 10% and 5% of the income from temples that have annual revenue of more than ₹1 crore and ₹10 lakh respectively.
- Previously, temples earning between ₹5 lakh and ₹10 lakh annually contributed 5% of their net income to the Common Pool Fund, while those earning above ₹10 lakh allocated 10%.
Bill proposed to utilise the money for the welfare of archakas (priests) and the development of temples whose annual income is less than ₹5 lakh.

Legal and Institutional Framework to Regulate Temples

Article 25 (1) gives the freedom of religion and 25 (2) talks about areas where the State may intervene and make laws or regulate religious institutions.
Article 26 provides for the freedom to manage the religious affairs of the citizens and is subject to public order, morality and health.
Entry 28 of List III of Schedule VII empowers both Union and State Legislatures to make law on “Charities and charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments and religious institutions”.
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE): Several states across the country have enacted legislative and regulatory frameworks to regulate these institutions through the powers accorded by the Constitution.
Hindu Religious Endowments Commission (1960): The Commission declared that government control over temples was essential to prevent maladministration.

Temple regulation in the Colonial Period

Religious Endowments Act of 1863was enacted to establish local committees to oversee the temples.
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1925 provided oversight of the management of temples through a board of commissioners with enormous powers.

State control of Temple: Argument for and against

Arguments in favour

Arguments in against

Social Reforms: State regulation has challenged the hereditary priesthood, ensuring more inclusive and non-discriminatory practices in public temples.
Representation of Marginalized Sections: Government intervention can counter the historical dominance of certain groups in temple management, promoting adequate representation.
- Example: Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act mandates SC/ST representation in temple Board of Trustees.
Efficient Temple Management: The Charitable Endowment Act ensures proper administration and preservation of temple assets, ensuring endowments are used for their intended purposes.
Community Welfare: State oversight can ensure that temple funds are used for community welfare activities, benefiting the local populace.

Violation of Secularism: State interference in religious affairs violates the principle of secularism which separates state affairs from the religion.
Non-uniform regulation: Opponents highlight the disproportionate focus on the regulation of Hindu temples, while other religious institutions remain largely autonomous.
Erosion of Operational Autonomy: State interventions have compromised the fundamental character and ethos of temple worship and rituals.
- For example, In the Chidambaram Case (2014), the Supreme Court permitted the Dikshitars (priest community) to manage the temple, emphasizing the need to preserve traditional autonomy.
Erosion of Cultural Capital: Poor conservation efforts have led to the damage and demolition of historically significant temple structures, as highlighted by a UNESCO fact-finding mission in 2017 submitted to the Madras High Court.
Loss of Tourist Potential: The diversion of temple funds into other activities by the state may leave little for investment in temple infrastructure.
Tribals and Indigenous Communities: State control might not be sensitive to the unique customs and traditions of tribal communities associated with their places of worship.

Way Forward

Separation of religious and administrative domain: There should be a clear separation of power in operations relating to the religious domain and the administrative (secular) domain.
Inter Temples Network Structure: Temples can be grouped in three categories based on their size. Then club temples based on the hub and spoke model in which larger and administratively strong temples support smaller temples in the region.
Good governance principles: State-level Temple Administration Board (Having state officials) assisted by the Temple Management Committee (TMC) and Temple Level Trusts (having priests, locals etc.) can be constituted to administer different functions.
- Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1991 also provides for a Temples Administration Board.
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV): Temple Development and Promotion Corporation (TDPC) can be formed to undertake all development work of all temples relating to tourism, networking of temples, promoting research and publication, IT, training, and capacity building, etc.
Following Best Practices: The concept of Devaswom (property of God) in Kerala is an interesting model to keep check on corruption.