Temples have always been a strong pillar of Sanatan Dharma for thousands of years, possessing great wealth and socio-political influence. This made them prime targets for invaders, from Islamic rulers to the British. While Islamic invaders believed in complete temple destruction, the British aimed to control them, starting in 1810.
Between 1810 and 1827, the East India Company introduced Temple Control Acts in Bengal, Madras, and Bombay states to regulate temples. However, their British masters in London disapproved of Christians managing Hindu temples. As a result, in 1833, they issued directives to relinquish control of temples.
In 1863, the British passed the Religious Endowments Act, transferring the administration of all temples to Hindus. However, this did not last long. In 1925, the British introduced the Madras Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which placed not only Hindu temples but all religious institutions in the Madras state under government control.
Muslims and Christians protested, but Hindus, under the influence of Congress, remained passive. Thus, in 1927, the British enacted the ‘Madras Hindu Religious and Endowment Act of 1927,’ which released all non-Hindu religious places from government control while keeping Hindu religious institutions under their authority. This marked the beginning of discrimination against Hindus, which continues to this day. In 1947, India gained independence, and temples were freed from British control.
In 1950, the Indian Constitution came into effect, and Articles 25 and 26 granted full freedom to all religions to manage their religious places. However, this euphoria lasted only one year. In 1951, the independent Madras state reintroduced the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, capturing Hindu temples once again—this was a direct violation of the newly implemented Constitution.
This act was challenged in the Supreme Court, and in 1954, in the Shirur Mutt case, the Court restored the autonomy and rights of religious institutions, specifically Hindu mutts, to manage their affairs without undue government interference.
However, the Congress government of Madras state refused to accept this ruling. It’s important to note that the term “Madras” refers to what is now Tamil Nadu. The name was changed from Madras to Tamil Nadu in 1969.
Between 1954 and 1963, Congress leader K. Kamaraj served as Chief Minister of Madras. The Kamaraj government filed a review petition in the Supreme Court.
In 1959, the Madras government introduced the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, reintroducing sections that had previously been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Many individuals challenged this act in the Supreme Court, and the legal battle continues to this day. Other Indian states followed Tamil Nadu’s model and gradually introduced their own state religious and charitable endowment acts, seizing control of Hindu temples.
Currently, around 4 lakh temples across India are under government control. In many cases, the government has diverted temple funds for purposes unrelated to Hinduism, such as funding madrasas, churches, and other activities.
During Congress rule, for instance, the Karnataka government once collected ₹79 crore from temples. Out of this, only ₹7 crore was spent on temple upkeep, while ₹59 crore was allocated to mosques and ₹5 crore to churches.
The same pattern is evident with the Tirupati temple. Since India’s Constitution is secular, anything owned by the government is automatically considered secular. This means that once the government takes over a temple, it is no longer seen as a religious institution but as a secular one, allowing the Supreme Court to intervene. The Sabarimala case is a classic example of this.
