The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s recent verdict has revived one of the most enduring debates in independent India — whether Hindu temples should remain under state control. Hindu seers, scholars and activists have for too long demanded an end to the government’s persisting administration of temples violates constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. The issue gained national attention after the high court’s landmark ruling in Kashmir Chand Shadyal v State of Himachal Pradesh on 14 October, which reaffirmed that temple funds belong to the deity, not the state.

The division bench of Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and BC Negi declared that donations to Hindu temples were sacred offerings and could not be diverted for secular (not Hindu-specific, non-religious) schemes. Every rupee of temple funds, the court ruled, must be used for the temple’s own religious activities or dharmic charities consistent with its traditions. Any misuse will now constitute a criminal breach of trust. The bench also reaffirmed that, under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, blanket administrative orders could not curtail a community’s right to worship. The state, it said, must balance faith and public order case by case, not through broad prohibitions that infringe upon religious freedom. The petitioners had also challenged the arbitrary restrictions on devotees’ access during festivals.

The state of Himachal Pradesh manages over 20,000 temples through the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, which empowers the government to supervise donations and even divert surpluses to public welfare. Such laws, which have counterparts in several states, are relics of colonial policy. The court’s verdict effectively questions this framework, recognising the deity as the rightful owner of all temple assets.

The Case For Freeing Temples From State Control

The verdict assumes importance in the light of a series of exposés showing widespread corruption, mismanagement and politicisation of temple boards across India. These cases reveal the structural flaws of state control and the need to return temples to community management.

Below is a compilation of nine recent case studies (state, temple, nature of anomaly, outcome/status):

What’s particularly disturbing, for all such cases of corruption, Hindus are blamed, with the detractors seeing a lack of morals typical of the community, for no fault of its own.

The high court judgement strengthens a movement that views temple autonomy as a civilisational necessity. By law, a temple is not merely a public institution but the abode of a living deity — a juristic person with legal rights. The management of its property, rituals and donations is thus a sacred duty, not a bureaucratic assignment. When the state administers temples, it acts as an intermediary between the deity and devotees — something alien to dharmic........

© News18