In a significant legal decision this Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected a request for an immediate halt to a Madras High Court ruling. This ruling had previously struck down government orders that permitted the construction of wedding halls using funds from temples. The plea for this interim stay was filed by the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple in Palani.
A Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, did acknowledge and admit the special leave petition for a full hearing, scheduling the next session for November 19. However, they made it clear that the Madras High Court’s original decision would remain in effect for the time being. Among the parties involved in the case are Rama Ravikumar, who was the original petitioner in the High Court, the State of Tamil Nadu, and the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department.
“The High Court’s order will stand as is for now,” Justice Nath stated during the proceedings. “We have rejected the request for any temporary relief.”
Further emphasizing the court’s stance, Justice Mehta issued a stern warning to the temple authorities: “If even a single penny is used for these constructions in the interim, you will be held accountable for contempt of court.”
Representing both the State and the temple authorities, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Jaideep Gupta, alongside Tamil Nadu Advocate General P.S. Raman, argued that any revenue generated from these proposed wedding halls would ultimately benefit the deities. Mr. Raman cited an example of a temple-built wedding hall that reportedly earns a substantial ₹7 lakh per day.
Mr. Gupta further asserted that temple authorities are well aware of and would uphold the sanctity of temple properties while managing these facilities. He argued that individuals seeking to host events with alcohol or non-vegetarian food would likely choose private venues elsewhere, suggesting that those opting for temple halls would respect the religious environment.
In contrast, senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing the original petitioner in the High Court, strongly criticized the State. He contended that the State was “acting as if it owns Hindu religious sites.” Krishnakumar maintained that such construction projects are purely commercial and have no religious purpose. He argued that diverting temple funds for these commercial ventures constitutes a direct violation of the HR&CE Act of 1959 and represents a clear misuse of sacred donations from devotees.