By Sujit Bhar
A recent, significant ruling by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has once again brought into focus the staggering wealth tied up with temples in India and the recurring attempts—political or administrative—to divert these funds for secular or state purposes. The Court quashed a Tamil Nadu government order that sought to utilise temple funds for constructing marriage halls, holding that temple wealth belongs to the deity, not to the government, and must serve only religious purposes.
This judgment does more than address one state’s attempt at financial diversion. It reopens a centuries-old debate: Who truly controls temple wealth in India? Can such vast reserves—money, land, gold, jewellery—remain insulated from state interference in modern times? And most crucially, do laws like the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act offer enough protection against misuse, or are they themselves tools of state control?
THE EXTENT OF THE WEALTH
There is no exact, universally agreed-upon number for the total number of temples in India, but various estimates suggest at least 6,00,000 to over 2 million Hindu temples alone, with some analyses pointing to figures around 6,50,000 or even 7,50,000. This will not include many smaller or undocumented structures.
Apart from temples, there are religious institutions that also have a high level of wealth, also protected by laws of the land. The wealth of many of these temples/institutions have been accumulated through donations by devotees, offerings, endowments, and inherited property over many decades, centuries, and even millennia.
While exact numbers are impossible to verify due to opacity and tradition, various estimates suggest temple wealth runs into trillions of rupees. Here are some of the more prominent ones:
- Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Kerala: In 2011, a Supreme Court-ordered audit of underground vaults revealed treasure worth Rs 1.4 lakh crore (about USD 20 billion at that time) in gold, jewels, and antiques. One vault, reportedly never opened, could hold even more.
- Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), Andhra Pradesh: Tirupati is considered the world’s richest temple, receiving Rs 4,000 to 5,000 crore annually in donations. It holds over 10 tons of gold reserves and thousands of crores in fixed deposits.
- Shirdi Sai Baba Temple, Maharashtra: Its annual income is estimated at Rs 600 crore, with gold and silver reserves worth more than Rs 30 crore.
- Vaishno Devi Shrine, Jammu: Receives more than one crore pilgrims a year, generating annual revenues over Rs 500 crore.
- Golden Temple, Amritsar: Sikh shrines, too, attract huge donations, though the management remains under different legal frameworks than Hindu temples.
These examples illustrate just the tip of the iceberg. Cumulatively, India’s temples likely hold gold reserves exceeding those of the Reserve Bank of India, which itself manages around 800 tonnes. The non-monetary wealth—land holdings, antiques, cultural treasures—is equally immense, though largely undocumented.
ATTEMPTS AT MISUSE
Temple wealth has long been a magnet for rulers and governments. From medieval invaders looting temples to modern administrations eyeing their surplus funds, the story is one of repeated attempts at appropriation.
- Colonial era: The British East India Company initially took over temple management in southern India, viewing donations as a lucrative revenue source. But after backlash, they transferred control to local boards and trusts.
- Post-Independence: Several state governments enacted laws—like the HR & CE Act in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh—that gave them sweeping powers over temple administration. Ostensibly meant to ensure transparency, these provisions have often enabled political interference.
- Kerala’s Guruvayur Temple (1970s-80s): Funds were sought to be diverted for secular projects, sparking public protests.
- Andhra Pradesh (2000s): Successive governments tried to use TTD’s surplus for welfare schemes, drawing criticism from devotees who argued that donations meant for Lord Venkateswara should not bankroll state populism.
- Tamil Nadu (the case in point here): The HR & CE Department announced marriage halls worth Rs 80 crore across 27 temples, quashed by the Madurai bench. The Court held that temple wealth is not “public money”, but religious endowment.
These episodes highlight a tension: governments often see temple wealth as idle capital that could finance development, while courts and devotees insist that such assets have inviolable religious character.
POSSIBLE USE OF SUCH FUNDS
The argument for state control has always hinged on pragmatism. India faces deficits in health, education, and infrastructure. Could temple wealth bridge these gaps?
In theory, yes. Redirecting even a fraction of temple funds could provide massive fiscal relief. For instance:
- Padmanabhaswamy’s treasure alone could finance several years of Kerala’s healthcare budget.
- TTD’s annual surplus could underwrite thousands of rural schools.
However, this line of thinking falters on constitutional and ethical grounds:
1. Violation of religious freedom: Donations are made with a religious intent. Diverting them elsewhere infringes on the donor’s fundamental right under Article 25 (freedom of religion).
2. Selective appropriation: Why only Hindu temples? Mosques, churches and gurudwaras are managed autonomously. Using temple funds would create unequal treatment.
3. Risk of mismanagement: Government handling of religious funds often invites corruption and inefficiency. Past cases show diversion rarely benefits citizens as intended.
Thus, while financially tempting, such appropriation undermines both trust and legality.
ARE EXISTING LAWS ENOUGH?
The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act—first enacted in 1951 and amended by various states—was designed to regulate temple affairs, prevent mismanagement, and ensure funds are used for religious purposes. Some key provisions of this Act are as follows:
- Government appoints commissioners to oversee temple trusts.
- Income and expenditure are audited.
- Funds must be used for temple upkeep, festivals, and charitable activities tied to religious intent.
However, critics argue that HR & CE laws themselves are problematic:
- They give excessive powers to governments, enabling interference.
- They apply only to Hindu temples, not to institutions of other religions—raising concerns of discrimination.
- Implementation is inconsistent, with many small temples suffering neglect despite state oversight.
The Madurai bench’s ruling is, therefore, not just about protecting temple wealth, but about limiting the scope of HR & CE from expanding “religious purposes” to secular projects like marriage halls.
THE ISSUE OF AUDIT
Auditing temple funds is both necessary and contentious. Transparency is essential to prevent embezzlement by trustees or collusion with political actors. Yet, devotees often resist outside scrutiny, fearing it undermines faith traditions.
Some reforms could balance both sides:
- Independent religious audit boards staffed by devotees, accountants and retired judges, rather than government appointees.
- Digital donation tracking so that every rupee offered at a shrine is accounted for.
- Public reports on how funds are spent (this would be similar to annual reports of non-profits).
Such measures would strengthen accountability while respecting religious intent.
Money apart, the bigger issue would be the stock of gold and ornaments. The enormous stock of gold, jewels, and ornaments locked away in temple vaults would prove to be the most complex issue. These are symbols of centuries of devotion, but in economic terms, they lie idle.
- Estimates suggest temples collectively hold over 4,000 tons of gold (currently worth approximately US $437.7 billion), dwarfing private or state reserves.
- Much of this cannot be monetised without violating religious sentiment.
The following have been some government initiatives over the years:
- The Reserve Bank of India introduced gold monetisation schemes, asking temples to deposit gold in return for interest. Some, like Tirupati, participated, but others—including Padmanabhaswamy—resisted.
- Devotees and priests argue ornaments are offerings to the deity, not negotiable assets. Removing them would amount to sacrilege.
This underscores the power of tradition and sentiment. For millions, temple wealth is not “surplus capital”, but a spiritual bond. As the Madras High Court observed, the deity is the legal owner, and the role of trustees or governments is only custodial.
BALANCING FAITH, WEALTH, AND MODERNITY
India thus faces a peculiar challenge. On the one hand its temples hold wealth that could fund vast development needs. On the other, legal, religious, and sentimental factors keep this wealth ring-fenced. The way forward may not lie in appropriation, but in contextual use within religious frameworks:
- Temples can expand charitable wings—running schools, hospitals, and community kitchens—under religious sanction. Tirupati, for instance, already runs one of the largest free meal programmes in the world.
- Transparent management can ensure surplus funds serve both devotees and society, without being usurped by governments.
- Courts, as in the Madras High Court ruling, play a vital role in keeping checks on overreach.
The Madurai bench’s quashing of the Tamil Nadu government’s attempt to use temple funds for marriage halls is not an isolated judgement. It is part of a larger, ongoing struggle over who controls India’s religious wealth.
Temples are custodians of extraordinary material and spiritual capital. While this wealth may seem idle in economic terms, its sanctity is embedded in faith and tradition. Attempts at diversion—whether colonial, political, or administrative—inevitably clash with this principle.
The lesson is clear: temple wealth belongs to the deity, not the state. The challenge for modern India is to respect this sanctity while innovating transparent, religiously sanctioned ways for temples to serve society. In the end, the power of tradition may resist change, but with proper safeguards, temple wealth can continue to be both a repository of faith and a force for social good—without succumbing to misuse.