The unfinished freedom: Why Hindu temples must break State shackles

For centuries, India’s temples served as centres of knowledge, culture, charity, and community life. But post-independence policies placed thousands of Hindu temples under intrusive state control, eroding their autonomy and weakening their spiritual and cultural vitality. Bureaucratic interference, political patronage, diversion of funds, encroachments on temple land, and persistent mismanagement have pushed many once-thriving temples into decline.

Constitutional protections and Supreme Court judgments clearly affirm that religious institutions must manage their own affairs—yet only Hindu temples remain under state grip. Restoring autonomy is essential to protect tradition, ensure accountability, and uphold true secular equality in India

Temples in India have historically stood at the heart of community life—not merely as sacred spaces, but as centres of learning, charity, culture, and social cohesion. For centuries, they shaped the subcontinent’s architectural, spiritual, and economic landscape. They were universities, shelters, granaries, performing-arts academies, and social safety nets long before these concepts entered modern governance. Temples sustained villages, protected vulnerable communities, preserved art forms, and fostered a deep sense of belonging.

Yet, in post-independence India, a vast number of Hindu temples came under the direct or indirect control of state governments through Endowments Departments and a maze of state-specific legislations. What was originally conceived as temporary oversight to prevent mismanagement gradually hardened into permanent, institutionalised state control. Over time, lack of accountability, bureaucratic overreach, and—at times—blatant greed has reduced many temples to shadows of their former glory. Some lost vast tracts of land; others became financially stagnant; a few turned wealthy but riddled with administrative fault lines.

Even India’s richest temples have not been immune. Kerala’s Sabarimala and Guruvayur have frequently faced controversies involving missing valuables. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), during the previous regime in Andhra Pradesh, was rocked by accusations of adulterated ghee being used in the famed laddus. These are not small or isolated aberrations; they reflect deeper systemic flaws inherent in state-controlled religious administration. Today, the debate over freeing temples from government management is gaining national momentum—supported by constitutional principles, judicial rulings, community voices, and real-world examples of thriving autonomous temples. There has been a long-standing aberration perpetuated by successive Congress governments, which continued colonial-era policies, yet under the banner of “secularism” chose not to bring institutions of other faiths under similar scrutiny or control.

This selective philosophy created a dangerous imbalance. Over decades, many Hindus accepted this passively, and that silence has emboldened political elements who now openly mock Sanatana Dharma—likening it to diseases such as dengue or malaria—and express desires to “finish it.”

Despite losing election after election—nearly 95 in recent memory—leaders with an openly anti-Hindu mindset persist in the politics of appeasement. They shed copious tears when extremists, Maoists, or terrorists face consequences, claiming human rights violations, demanding resignations of the Prime Minister and Home Minister.

They questioned the abrogation of Article 370, cast doubts on the valour of the Indian Army, and yet remained conspicuously silent when bomb blasts—whether in Delhi recently or in earlier tragic attacks—claimed innocent lives and opose Uniform Civil Code. But when it comes to temple autonomy, their lips remain sealed. Not once do they state that Endowments Departments should relinquish intrusive control over Hindu temples.

If governments lack the courage to wind up these departments, their role must at least be redefined. Endowments should not run temples. Instead, they should focus on infrastructure around temples, hygiene, accessibility, and oversight mechanisms—not religious administration. The current model violates the very foundation of secular equality, because institutions of most other religions operate with full autonomy.

Constitutional and Judicial Support for Temple Autonomy

The Constitution of India offers robust protections for religious freedom. Article 26 explicitly grants every religiousdenomination the right “to manage its own affairs in matters of religion” and “to administer property.” This is not selective; it applies equally to temples, mosques, churches, and gurdwaras. Yet, in practice, only Hindu institutions have been subjected to intrusive state control.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle:

l The Shirur Mutt Case (1954): The Court unequivocally held that the state cannot permanently take over a religious institution. Any intervention must be temporary and solely to rectify mismanagement.

l Seshammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1972): The judgment clarified that while states may regulate secular aspects, they cannot interfere with traditional and hereditary religious practices.

l Chidambaram Nataraja Temple Case (2014): The Court ordered the return of temple administration to the Dikshitar priests, ruling that governments cannot indefinitely control temples.

These landmark rulings make one thing abundantly clear: permanent state control of temples violates constitutional protections and goes against the spirit of religious freedom.Endowments departments were meant to protect temple wealth. Instead, they often ended up compromising it. Several persistent problems have become deeply entrenched:

State officials—often unfamiliar with theology, ritual, or tradition—routinely interfere in religious decisions. Appointing priests, altering rituals, fixing festival dates—matters that belong solely to the religious community—are handled by civil servants. This not only disrupts tradition but dilutes spiritual sanctity.

Temple boards become tools for political reward. Appointments favour ruling-party loyalists, not scholars or devotees. Decisions—from contracts to land leases—are frequently influenced by electoral interests, not spiritual responsibility.

In states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, temple income has been diverted to secular state projects. Thousands of smaller temples lack funds for daily puja or repairs. Allegations of diversion under the previous YSRCP government in Andhra Pradesh intensified concerns.

Large tracts of land have been encroached upon or sold at throwaway rates. Without local community oversight, assets disappear silently. In Hyderabad’s Old City, numerous temples are crumbling; volunteers trying to protect them face intimidation and attacks. Audits are routinely delayed. Devotees rarely see financial reports. Accountability flows upward within the bureaucracy, not outward to the worshippers—the actual stakeholders.

Although most laws permit state control only in cases of mismanagement, governments rarely relinquish control. This contradicts repeated Supreme Court warnings.

CAG reports reinforce these concerns—missing temple lands, incomplete records, and diversion of income. Far from improving temples, state control often accelerates their deterioration.

Temples thrive when managed by those who understand their cultural and spiritual essence. Devotees and traditional trustees preserve rituals, festivals, and customs with intention—not for revenue, but for dharma. Autonomous institutions also demonstrate far better financial discipline and service orientation.

Temples like and numerous Jain temples operate with transparency and exceptional efficiency. They run hospitals, schools, kitchens, disaster relief programmes, and cultural academies.

Renowned institutions such as Ahobilam in Andhra Pradesh, Somnath in Gujarat, and the temples in Ranakpur and Girnar show how religious bodies, when allowed self-governance, create sustainable ecosystems rooted in devotion and community participation. They stand as powerful reminders that temples flourish when freed from bureaucracy.

The question of freeing temples is not about politics—it is about restoring constitutional rights, preserving culture, and ensuring fairness in a genuinely secular nation. Temples are not government departments. They are living civilisations. When run by devotees, they uplift society; when run by bureaucrats, they decay.

India must correct this historical imbalance. Temples deserve the freedom guaranteed to them by the Constitution, affirmed by courts, and demanded by millions of devotees. The time to restore that autonomy is now.

(The author is a former Chief Editor at The Hans India)