The Supreme Court has revived a long-running constitutional challenge to laws governing Hindu religious institutions in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Puducherry, bringing back a dispute pending since 2012. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma recalled its April 2025 order that had directed petitioners to approach 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 petitioners, while 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, Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1987, and Pondicherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1972.
At the core of the challenge are statutory provisions dealing with HR&CE Commissioners’ powers, appointment and control of executive officers and trustees, temple account audits, utilisation of surplus temple funds, alienation of temple property, and overall State supervision over Hindu religious institutions.
Petitioners argue these provisions infringe constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, 25, 26, and 31A. They contend that state control violates rights to equality, freedom of occupation, and most significantly, religious freedom and autonomy of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
Article 25 protects freedom to profess, practise, and propagate religion, while Article 26 safeguards religious denominations’ right to manage their own religious affairs and administer property in accordance with law.
In April 2025, the Court had declined to decide the constitutional challenge on merits, directing petitioners to the High Courts since statutory schemes “may be distinct.” The Court noted High Courts could consider socio-religious and historical contexts and seek expert committee assistance if required.
Petitioners challenged this view through review petitions, arguing the Court 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 HR&CE framework and share materially similar provisions with parallel mechanisms relating to State-appointed administrators, Commissioner powers, regulatory oversight, and administrative fees.
They argued that splitting the challenge across multiple High Courts would lead to inconsistent outcomes and unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. A significant review argument was that the matter has been pending before the Supreme Court for over 13 years and had already reached the final hearing stage earlier.
Petitioners invoked Article 32, emphasising that direct access to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights is itself a constitutional guarantee. They relied on prior judicial history, including Madras High Court decisions striking down parts of the earlier Madras HR&CE framework, later examined by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt jurisprudence.
After hearing review petitions in open court, the bench agreed to recall its April 2025 order. The Supreme Court will now examine the constitutional validity of HR&CE laws collectively rather than leaving the matter to multiple High Courts.
This revival brings renewed hope for Hindu temples’ administrative autonomy under Sanatana Dharma.
Follow Dharmic News for updates on this landmark constitutional challenge.
