Opinion: Opinion | Should Hindu Religious Institutions Be Freed From State Control?

The extent of government involvement in administering temple wealth has been a deeply debated topic in the nation’s religious and cultural ethos. Recent controversies, such as the discovery of beef and fish oil in the sacred Tirupati Laddu, have brought the debate over government control of temple wealth back into the spotlight.

Institutions like the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple, and Maharashtra’s Shirdi Sai Baba Temple consistently receive substantial donations, making them some of the wealthiest religious establishments in the world. Beyond donations, temples also play a crucial role in boosting religious tourism, which contributes to regional economies. A 2016 study by the Centre for Policy Studies estimated that the wealth held by major Hindu temples could be as high as ₹5 lakh crore. Furthermore, a 2019 study by the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) revealed that religious tourism – mainly Hindu pilgrimages – contributes around 2.32% to India’s GDP.

For example, the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), one of India’s wealthiest temples, generates annual revenues of ₹3,000-₹4,000 crore. Since it was brought under state control in 1933, TTD’s cumulative revenue is estimated to be around ₹1.8-₹2 lakh crore. Similarly, the Sabarimala Temple, under government control since 1950, earns approximately ₹200-₹250 crore annually, adding up to ₹13,000-₹16,000 crore over the last 74 years. The Shirdi Sai Baba Temple in Maharashtra, controlled by the state since 1922, generates around ₹300 crore annually, with a cumulative revenue of ₹29,000 crore over 102 years. These numbers highlight the immense financial influence of these temples.

The origins of state control over temples can be traced back to British colonial rule. The British recognised the immense economic power of Hindu temples and took steps to manage their administration to ensure that temple revenues were safeguarded and used for their colonial goals. Once under government intervention, temples that had been traditionally managed by religious bodies were overseen by state authorities-a trend that persisted even after India’s independence in 1947.

Rather than dismantling this colonial system of control, the Indian government expanded its oversight. Laws like the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959 formalised state control, giving governments the authority to appoint trustees, manage temple properties, and direct how temple funds should be spent. The intention was to prevent mismanagement and corruption and ensure that temple wealth was used for public welfare, particularly in education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

However, this intervention has sparked significant controversy. Many argue that state control over Hindu temples is discriminatory, raising questions about religious freedom and equality before the law. While Hindu temples are subject to strict government oversight, religious institutions belonging to other communities-such as mosques and churches-enjoy considerable financial autonomy. For example, mosques are managed by the Waqf Board, and churches are overseen by diocesan authorities, both of which control their assets without government interference-a privilege Hindu temples do not share.

This disparity has led to growing calls for the autonomy of Hindu temples. Critics argue that temple revenues, being religious donations, should be managed by the community itself, rather than by the state. They claim that government involvement in temple administration violates Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. Hindu leaders and devotees have challenged state control of temple finances in court on several occasions, though judicial rulings have largely upheld the state’s right to intervene.

The issue is not just a legal or constitutional one; it is also politically sensitive. Many Hindu groups believe that the state’s control of temple revenues reflects an inherent bias against the majority religion in what is supposed to be a secular democracy. They question why Hindu institutions are subject to government oversight while religious institutions of minority communities are left alone.

Globally, most religious institutions enjoy financial autonomy. In the United States, for instance, religious organisations – whether churches, temples, mosques, or synagogues – are tax-exempt and manage their finances independently. The same holds in the United Kingdom, where religious institutions control their revenues without state intervention. India’s approach to temple management is therefore unique, raising questions about whether the state truly maintains a secular stance in dealing with different religions.

Understanding the complexities of this issue requires a deep look into India’s colonial history, post-independence policies, and the delicate balance between religion and state. As renowned advocate Fali S. Nariman once said, *”While the state may regulate secular activities, the moment it interferes with the religious essence of an institution, it steps onto dangerous ground where constitutional rights can be trampled.”*

Nariman’s warning remains particularly relevant today, as the debate over temple control continues to raise concerns about religious freedom and equality. In a world where religious institutions are generally allowed to manage their own finances and assets, the question persists: why should Hindu temples in India not be granted the same autonomy?

(Anurag Punetha is a Senior Broadcast Journalist and Head of Media at IGNCA.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author