Madras HC Places Chidambaram Nataraja Temple Under Expert Board Until Mismanagement Is Cured, Citing Heritage Damage And Unaudited Accounts

The batch concerned G.O.(Ms) No.115, dated 17 May 2022, which permitted devotees to climb the Kanagasabai at the Sri Sabanayagar Temple, Chidambaram, for darshan.

The Podhu Dikshitars challenged the order as an interference with their Article 26 rights to administer the temple’s religious affairs; other petitioners questioned restrictions on public access.

Related applications raised concerns about alleged alterations to the temple’s heritage structures and the accounting, audit and recovery of temple assets.

The Court considered the Government’s Heritage Commission inspection report, which identified numerous constructions and alterations requiring conservation review, and found that the accounts produced by the Podhu Dikshitars were unaudited ledgers.

Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution protect freedom of religion and a religious denomination’s right to manage religious affairs, subject to the constitutional limitations identified by the Court, including public order, morality and health.

The Court relied on Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 5 SCC 75, for the principle that the Podhu Dikshitars’ right to administer the temple must be respected and cannot be displaced by permanent State administration; intervention to remedy maladministration, however, may be justified only for the period necessary to cure it.

The Court also considered the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, in addressing temple administration, property protection and conservation.

The Court held that the G.O. regulated devotees’ access for darshan and did not, in itself, displace the Podhu Dikshitars’ authority over religious ceremonies or administration; their denominational rights therefore did not invalidate the order, particularly where the temple was a public place of worship.

It nevertheless found that the heritage inspection report identified extensive alterations requiring expert review and that the temple’s properties and finances were inadequately protected, with the accounts submitted being unaudited.

In light of these findings, and the Court’s view that the Supreme Court’s ruling barred permanent displacement but permitted corrective intervention to remedy maladministration, it ordered temporary oversight through a Board of Management.

It declined to quash G.O.(Ms) No.115 and constituted a Board of Management to oversee fair public access to darshan, heritage conservation, recovery and management of temple property, and proper accounting.

The Podhu Dikshitars retained responsibility for daily rituals and festivals, subject to established customs and practices.

The writ petitions were disposed of and the connected miscellaneous petitions closed, with no order as to costs.