HR&CE Executive Officer's Powers Confined To Temple Properties, Can't Interfere In Religious Affairs Or Traditions: Madras High Court

A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that as per Section 45(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, an EO can only exercise functions with respect to the properties of the temple. The bench thus held that the EO cannot deal with any aspect of the temple which has a religious character.

“The plain meaning of the aforesaid provision is to the effect that the Executive Officer can exercise functions only in respect of the properties of the temple….In other words, what is contemplated in the proviso is that no other power can be exercised. It forbids the Executive Officer from interfering in the religious aspects,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by an activist TR Ramesh calling for proper administration of the temples in Tamil Nadu, especially the Shri Parthasarathy Swamy Temple in Triplicane, Chennai. The petitioner submitted that for the last several decades, the administration of the temple was vested with the EO, who doubled up as the fit person. The petitioner called for changing the situation and for proper administration.

The Additional Advocate General informed the court that the EO was appointed as per an order of the court in 1982 and could not be faulted with. It was also submitted that the trustees would be appointed as expeditiously as possible, within 6 months, and he requested the court to close the plea.

The court noted that in 1982, an interim order was passed by the court restraining the HR & CE Department from appointing any trustees and directed the existing EO to continue holding office and to act as a fit person also. The court also noted that the plea in which the interim order was passed was itself disposed of in the year 1991. The court thus held that when the plea itself was disposed of, the interim order would continue only till the main matter is disposed of.

The court thus held that the temple administration could not continue to be run by the Executive Officer-cum-Fit Person by citing the interim order in the disposed plea. The court emphasised that only in exceptional circumstances and for a very brief duration, the EO could function as Fit Person. The court said that the administration of the temple could only vest with a Board of Trustees and a fit person could only by appointed as an interim arrangement.

The court also highlighted that the statutory scheme envisages the Executive Officer to work along with the trustee, which would mean that there must be two persons – the EO and the trustee. The court said that when both the functions vest in the same person, the system of checks and balances would vanish.

“If the Executive Officer is also acting as a fit person, thus supplanting the trustee, that would be against the statutory scheme particularly, Rule 4(a) of the Rules, 2015. Lord Acton presciently remarked that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are quite a few temples whose annual budgets run into several crores of rupees. If there is a multi member trust board and also a Government official acting as Executive Officer, that would ensure that power is properly exercised. If there is no Trust Board and the Executive Officer is also asked to act as a Fit Person, such state of affairs would not be conducive to a proper administration. We, therefore, hold that the Government or the Commissioner of HR&CE Department ought not to vest the power of Fit Person in the Executive Officer of the same temple,” the court clarified.

Thus, the court disposed of the plea, highlighting the need to appoint a Board of Trustees.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, for M/s. G. R. Associates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. V. Balasubramaniam, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Government counsel, Mr. A. K. Sriram, Senior counsel, for M/s. A. S. Kailasam & Associates

Case Title: TR Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

Case No: WP NO 20764 OF 2026