• “State governments, as custodian, cannot unilaterally usurp, nor permit any of its officers to usurp, the property of the religious/charitable institutions it is supposed to protect.” Know contents of SC Order. Does Property include gold, silver, fixed deposits too? 

I earlier wrote How Hindu Temples came under Government Control and How Hindu Temples can be effectively managed? This piece analyses a SC order of October 2026 passed by respected Judges Alok Arade and P S Narasimha. After reading about this order in the Hindustan Times, I downloaded the Order from the SC site. HT reports on earlier orders on subject August 2025 Madras HC order says Temple Assets belong to the deity alone . In 2021 SC states w.r.t. Madhya Pradesh that temple land belongs to deity or priests 

“Can the State Government, which the law requires to act as a custodian of the properties belonging to religious/charitable institutions, can itself become the recipient of a gift of such property from a temporary trustee of a temple?”

Summary

In Kodumudi Village, Erode District, Tamil Nadu the temple had land. The village needed a Taluk Office. The trustee made the temple gift a piece of land to the Government of Tamil Nadu, without payment of any compensation.

Since the Taluk office already made SC ordered the State government to pay a monthly rent of Rs 31,000/ to the temple trust.

“The court made it clear that the State’s power to regulate temple administration does not make it the owner of temple assets.” 1 HT

Will temple property include Gold, Jewellery, Fixed Deposits that are part of the temple trust?

Facts of the Case – taken excerpts from the SC order, copyright lies with SC

1. “The land measuring 1 acre and 10 cents in Survey Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and 41/2 of Kodumudi Village, Erode District, Tamil Nadu (the ‘subject land’) belonged to Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple (the ‘Temple’) and was

administered by the temple trust.” 

2. “By a Gift Deed of the same date, the temporary trustee of the Temple, gifted the subject land to the Government of TN.”

3. “The writ petition preferred by the villagers was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.03.2018. In the writ petition filed by the hereditary trustee, the High Court by an order dated 19.03.2019, held that the word ‘gift/settlement’ does not appear in Section 34 of the 1959 Act and that alienation by way of gift was, on that account, not prohibited.” Pg 3

“The hereditary trustee did not pursue the matter further. On 19.08.2019, the appellants, who are devotees of the Temple were granted permission to file Special Leave Petitions against the judgment of the High Court The stand thus taken by the State leaves no doubt that the Temple is the owner of the subject land.” Pg 4

4. “Our country’s religious institutions are not merely places of worship, they are, in law and, in fact, repositories of considerable wealth, land, buildings, jewellery

and specie, accumulated over centuries through the offerings of ordinary devotees and the endowments of kings and commoners alike, given in the faith that what was dedicated to the deity would remain dedicated to the deity in perpetuity.” Pg 14.

“Every custodian holds it only in trust for the deity and the worshippers it serves.”

“A seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, held that while Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution protect religious belief and practice, they do not immunise the secular and economic administration of religious property from regulation by law.” Pg. 14

5. “The affidavit dated 23.03.2022, extracted in paragraph 9 above, states in express terms that the subject land is an inam land granted to the deity for its support and maintenance under Inam Title Deed No. 388.” Pg 18

6. “The fact that the document nonetheless came to be registered does not cure this infirmity; registration under one statute cannot validate what another statute, governing the very property in question, declares void.” Pg. 20 

“The court rejected the argument that the transfer could be justified because the land was intended for a public office. It said the State, acting through the commissioner and other officials under the law, was “a custodian and regulator of temple properties, not their owner”. 1 HT

7. “A gift, being a transfer without consideration, cannot by its very nature be characterised as an act of ordinary prudence in the management of another’s property.” Pg 21

8. “We are, therefore, not inclined to set aside the lease granted in favour of the State Government. However, the issue with regard to the quantum of fair lease rent needs to be dealt? Rent of 31,000/ (as against Rs 13,235) per month payable from 2019.” Pg. 26

9. “Every decision touching the properties of a religious/charitable institution must be guided solely by the best interest and benefit of the trust, and never by the administrative convenience of the Government.”

(iii) “The State, as custodian, cannot unilaterally usurp, nor permit any of its officers to usurp, the property of the religious/charitable institutions it is charged to protect; a transaction that offends this principle, whatever its label or ostensible public purpose, is liable to be struck down.” Pg. 28 

10. “The Gift Deed dated 30.08.2017 executed in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu, is declared null and void.” Pg. 29

““That wealth, once given, ceases to belong to the donor, to the priest, to the trustee, or to the State; it vests in the deity, and every hand through which it subsequently passes holds it only in trust for the deity and, through the deity, for the community of worshippers it was meant to serve.” 1 HT

Whatever is in Inverted Commas is verbatim from the SC order. To read order (highlighted for your convenience) click on PDF

Over the years, I learnt a lot by reading SC orders.  

Who will free Hindu Temples of Government Control is the big question?

Also read

1. October HT report that prompted this analysis

2. To read articles on site w.r.t Supreme Court