The Supreme Court of India has declined to directly adjudicate constitutional challenges to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) legislations enacted by the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Puducherry, directing the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the respective jurisdictional High Courts.
The bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, observed that the High Courts were better placed to examine the State-specific dimensions of these enactments. In its brief order dated April 1, the Court held:
“We find that a more effective manner of ventilating the grievances by the petitioners herein is to assail the provisions of the respective Acts before the respective jurisdictional High Courts so as to enable the High Courts to better appreciate the dimensions of challenge of the provisions of the respective Acts.”
These petitions, some of which have been pending since 2012, had assailed multiple provisions of the HRCE laws on grounds that they infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 25, 26, and 31A of the Constitution. The petitioners, including spiritual leaders and organisations, alleged excessive State interference in religious administration, including appointments of executive officers, control over temple finances, and restrictions on hereditary trusteeship.
The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959; the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987; the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1987; and the Puducherry Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1972 were at the center of the constitutional scrutiny.
The petitioners contended that various sections of these Acts grant the State control over religious institutions in violation of the autonomy guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26. Notably, reliefs were also sought against specific Government Orders and Rules such as the Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers (G.O. Ms. No. 260/2015) and the Utilization of Surplus Funds Rules (G.O. Ms. No. 4524/1960), as well as appointments made to prominent temples in Tamil Nadu.
Despite the constitutional gravity of the questions raised, the apex court chose judicial restraint, emphasizing the importance of contextual understanding. The bench noted:
“If such writ petitions are filed by the petitioners herein before the respective High Courts, the same could be considered having regard to the various dimensions of the provisions in light of the socio-economic, cultural and religious aspects of the matter which are all in essence historical aspects of the matter including the judicial verdicts of the Courts.”
The Court also left it open for the High Courts to constitute expert committees, should they deem it appropriate, to facilitate adjudication through informed perspectives:
“The High Courts are also free to constitute an Expert Committee so as to have assistance of the recommendations said Committee for the purpose of deciding the cases, if they so think fit.”
The petitions disposed of included Writ Petition (C) No. 476/2012, W.P. (C) No. 1432/2019, W.P. (C) No. 1147/2021, and W.P. (C) No. 148/2024. Each of these invoked various constitutional provisions and challenged the vires of several statutory clauses ranging from executive appointments to financial control mechanisms.
Picture Source :
