Temple Donations Not Meant for Marriage Halls: Supreme Court

Rapid Summary

• Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court of India upheld the Madras High Court’s order that temple funds cannot be used for constructing marriage halls, ruling they are not for “religious purposes.”
• Government Orders Quashed: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court annulled government orders allowing construction of marriage halls with funds from five temples in Tamil Nadu.
• Temple Fund Usage Concern: The Supreme Court pointed out that money offered by devotees is intended for temple betterment or charitable purposes such as education or healthcare, and not commercial enterprises like rental marriage halls.
• Contention Raised by Petitioners: Petitioners argued in the High Court that utilizing temple funds for constructing marriage halls violated provisions under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Sections 35, 36 & 66).
• State’s Reasoning Rejected: The State’s lawyers contended it aimed to assist Hindus in conducting marriages at lower costs. Though, both courts questioned whether such activities align with religious objectives.
• Budget Details and Proposal Origins: A sum of ₹80 crore was allocated during a budget speech to construct marriage halls across 27 temples in Tamil Nadu.
• SC Next Hearing Scheduled: Despite upholding the judgment temporarily, Supreme Court agreed to hear petitioners’ challenge further on November 19 but declined stay relief.

Indian Opinion Analysis

This case raises critical questions about balancing religious principles and state interference over temple finances. As per legal frameworks like the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,funds donated by devotees are meant exclusively for maintenance or direct enhancement of religious institutions. Both judicial rulings emphasize preserving this sacred purpose amid concerns about their diversion toward commercial use.

On one hand, the government’s stated intent to reduce wedding costs aligns with it’s broader welfare motives but clashes with definitions under “religious purposes” prescribed in law. This tension underscores broader debates regarding secular management versus community autonomy over faith-based resources.

The decision could have significant implications beyond policy rectification-it sets a precedent restricting utilisations contrary to donor expectations while highlighting accountability mechanisms within public governance regarding temples. Further hearings may decide how tightly states can control temple endowments without encroaching upon spiritual rights granted under India’s Constitution.

read more: Link
!Image used for portrayal purpose only