Supreme Court Revives Challenge To HR&CE Laws, Agrees To Hear Temple Control Case on Merits

The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma recalled its April 2025 order, which had earlier relegated the petitioners to approach the respective High Courts.

The recall came after the Court allowed review petitions filed against that decision, clearing the way for a consolidated hearing on the merits before the apex court.

Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Guru Krishnakumar appeared for the petitioners, assisted by Advocates Akshay Nagarajan and Suvidutt Sundaram. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union of India.

The case challenges key provisions of four State enactments: the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959; the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987; the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1987; and the Pondicherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972.

At the core of the challenge are statutory provisions dealing with the powers of HR&CE Commissioners, appointment and control of executive officers and trustees, audit of temple accounts, utilisation of surplus temple funds, alienation of temple property, and overall State supervision over Hindu religious institutions.

The petitioners argue that these provisions infringe constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, 25, 26 and 31A. They contend that State control over temple administration violates the rights to equality, freedom of occupation, and, most significantly, religious freedom and autonomy of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.

Article 25 protects the freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion, while Article 26 safeguards the right of religious denominations to manage their own religious affairs and administer property in accordance with law.

In its April 2025 order, the Supreme Court had declined to decide the constitutional challenge on merits. Instead, it had directed the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts, observing that the statutory schemes of different States “may be distinct” and therefore better examined in jurisdiction-specific proceedings. The Court had also noted that High Courts could consider socio-religious and historical contexts and, if required, seek assistance from expert committees.

Challenging that view, the petitioners moved review petitions, arguing that the Court had proceeded on an erroneous assumption. They contended that the impugned statutes across Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Puducherry follow a common legislative origin in the erstwhile Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments framework and share materially similar provisions.

According to the petitioners, each enactment contains parallel mechanisms relating to State-appointed administrators, Commissioner powers, regulatory oversight of temple functioning, and levy of administrative fees. They argued that splitting the challenge across multiple High Courts would lead to inconsistent outcomes and unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.

A significant argument advanced in review was that the matter has been pending before the Supreme Court for over 13 years and had already reached the stage of final hearing earlier, before being redirected to High Courts. The petitioners also invoked Article 32, emphasising that direct access to the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights is itself a constitutional guarantee.

They further relied on prior judicial history, including decisions relating to the earlier Madras HR&CE framework, parts of which were struck down by the Madras High Court and later examined by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt line of jurisprudence. The petitioners alleged that similar regulatory mechanisms were reintroduced in subsequent State enactments despite those rulings.

After hearing the review petitions in open court, the Bench agreed to recall its April 2025 order. The effect of the decision is that the Supreme Court will now proceed to examine the constitutional validity of the HR&CE laws collectively, rather than leaving the matter to multiple High Courts.