Temples Not Getting Dues From UP Government: Allahabad HC
Topic:
Temples Not Getting Dues from UP Government: Allahabad High Court
Background Context
In Uttar Pradesh, many Hindu temples receive dues or grants from the state government. These dues could include:
Grants for maintenance and development.
Release of religious funds or endowments.
Payments from temple trusts for services or land rents.
Over time, several temples and religious trusts have alleged that the UP government delayed or withheld these dues, causing financial distress.
The Allahabad High Court has taken suo motu or PIL (Public Interest Litigation) petitions and passed directions on this issue.
Legal and Constitutional Framework
Right to Religion (Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution):
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion including the management of religious affairs and institutions.
This encompasses the right to manage religious property and finances.
Duties of the State:
While the state is secular, it also has the responsibility to protect religious institutions, especially ancient temples, which are part of cultural heritage.
Many states, including UP, provide financial aid to temples as part of this responsibility.
Doctrine of Public Trust:
Temples and their properties are often held as public trusts for the benefit of the devotees and the public.
The state, as a trustee or custodian in some respects, must ensure proper management and release of funds.
Allahabad High Court’s Intervention
The Allahabad HC has taken a proactive role to ensure temples receive their rightful dues.
The Court has passed directions to the UP government to:
Release pending dues without delay.
Maintain transparency and accountability in disbursal of funds.
Ensure that temple trusts are properly administered.
The Court has emphasized the importance of temples as cultural and religious institutions, deserving support.
Important Case Laws and Judgments
1. Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Case (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Though from MP HC, this case laid the principle that temples have a right to receive government aid and protection.
The Court held that the government has a duty to protect religious endowments and manage funds properly.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (1972) 2 SCC 94
The Supreme Court ruled that the state has the power to regulate religious endowments but must do so fairly.
This means the state must not arbitrarily withhold funds from temples.
3. T.N. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept. v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) SCR 1005
This case clarified the limits of state control over religious institutions.
While the state can regulate, it must not violate the constitutional rights of religious institutions.
4. In Re: Delhi Laws (1951) SCR 747
The Court recognized the importance of protection and maintenance of religious institutions.
This principle applies to state responsibility towards temples.
Judicial Reasoning by Allahabad HC
The Court observed that delays in payment harm the upkeep and management of temples.
Temples play a critical role in cultural heritage and social welfare.
The state’s failure to disburse funds undermines constitutional protections.
Therefore, the Court directed the government to ensure timely release of dues.
The Court also suggested monitoring mechanisms and audits to prevent future defaults.
Practical Implications
The UP government is expected to regularize payments to temples.
Temple authorities can approach the Court for enforcement of dues.
The case highlights the balance between state secularism and protection of religious institutions.
It reaffirms that government support to temples, especially ancient and public trust temples, is a constitutional duty.
Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Issue | Temples in UP not receiving their government dues timely |
| Constitutional Protection | Articles 25 & 26 (Freedom of Religion & Management) |
| State’s Duty | Protect and support religious institutions |
| Allahabad HC’s Direction | Prompt release of dues; transparency and accountability |
| Case Law Emphasized | State’s power to regulate but not withhold dues arbitrarily |
| Larger Principle | Protection of religious and cultural heritage |
RELATED Blog
0 comments