HR&CE department cannot reduce tenure of temple trustees if they were governed by scheme decrees: Madras HC

The first Division Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside an order passed by a single judge who had upheld a 2020 Government Order by which the tenure of the non-hereditary trustee of Kalikambal Kamadeswarar Temple at Thambu Chetty Street in Chennai was reduced from three to two years.

The first Division Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside an order passed by a single judge who had upheld a 2020 Government Order by which the tenure of the non-hereditary trustee of Kalikambal Kamadeswarar Temple at Thambu Chetty Street in Chennai was reduced from three to two years.

Acting Chief Justice T. Raja and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the tenure of the trustee could not be reduced by invoking the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act since the temple was covered by a Scheme Decree formulated by the High Court in a civil suit in 1935.

Referring to the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 to profess any religion and maintain the religious institutions, the Division Bench granted liberty to the HR&CE department to approach the High Court on its civil side and get the Scheme Decree modified in order to reduce the tenure.

Earlier, during arguments, Senior Counsel R. Singaravelan, representing the appellant S. Sarveshwaran Achari, said, the Kalikambal Kamadeswarar Temple’s history spanned back to 16th century since the Great Maratha Warrior Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj had visited the temple on October 3, 1677 during his Dakshin Digvijaya campaign.

It was a denominational temple dedicated to the Vishwakarma community. Following a civil suit filed in 1933, the Madras High Court had framed a Scheme Decree for its administration. However, when the HR&CE department reduced the term of non-hereditary trustee, Mr. Achari filed a writ petition against it in 2022.

A single judge of the court dismissed the petition on September 23, 2022 on the ground that the petitioner had approached the court at the end of his tenure and hence the present appeal.