The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to stay a Madras High Court order that struck down the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to construct marriage halls using temple funds, stressing that devotees’ offerings were not meant for commercial purposes.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing pleas challenging the August 19 order of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court. The high court had quashed government orders permitting the construction of marriage halls with the funds of five temples, observing that such usage did not fall under the ambit of “religious purposes.”
“Devotees do not offer their money to the temple for the purpose of setting up these marriage halls. It may be for the improvement of temple,” the bench remarked. The judges also raised concerns over the possibility of inappropriate activities inside temple premises, asking, “If there is a marriage party going on in a temple premises and all kinds of vulgar songs are played, is that the purpose of a temple land?”
The top court suggested that temple contributions could be better utilised for charitable purposes such as funding education or supporting medical institutions. It, however, agreed to hear the matter further and posted the case for November 19. “We will hear this matter. We are not granting any stay order to the petitioners,” the bench clarified.
The issue arose after the Tamil Nadu government, during the budget speech of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department Minister, announced plans to construct marriage halls in 27 temples by spending around ₹80 crore from temple funds.
Petitioners before the high court had argued that the government had no jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, to use temple funds for commercial purposes. They contended that such expenditure violated Sections 35, 36, and 66 of the Act, which regulate the use of temple finances.
The state government, defending its move, said Hindu marriages were religious activities and that marriage halls would assist devotees in performing ceremonies at lower costs.
The high court, however, held that temple funds could not be treated as government or public money and quashed the orders.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, along with other lawyers, appeared for the petitioners before the Supreme Court.
