- Chennai
- Tamil Nadu
- India
- World
- EntertainmentEntertainment
- Business
- Sports
- Lifestyle
- Technology
- Videos
- Explainers
The HR&CE Department recently conceded to demands that temple revenue must exclusively benefit devotees. Historically, however, South Indian temples were semi-autonomous public institutions deeply woven into the medieval state’s economic and political fabric. They were far more than places of worship, serving as hubs for administration, education, welfare, and local commerce. Given this context, is it legally wrong to utilise temple assets or income to establish public institutions like schools or colleges? Why have courts repeatedly ruled against such expenditures? Concurrently, the HR&CE Department lifted registration restrictions on 3,085 acres of land linked to four historic Karur district temples under the Inam Abolition Act. Does this reveal a fundamental contradiction in the government's approach to temple properties?
— R Manikandan, Anna Nagar
Needless to say, any expenditure by a temple administration is solely for the benefit of the temple and not for any other purpose. But of late, a calculated campaign has been launched to claim that temple property can never be sold. There is nothing wrong in capitalising the assets lying in the form of lands which produces nil income. That is why Section 34 of the Act makes it mandatory to get government consent.
Today's prestigious Kesava Perumalpuram layout lying abutting Greenways Road was once a casuarina thope of the Kapaleeswarar temple, and it was sold during the Congress government in the early sixties.
By virtue of owning lands, temples enter into several relationships with tenants in both urban and rural areas, giving rise to many legal demands. While all ownership vests with the deity, many 'inams' (land grants) were historically given for specific temple services or to particular classes of persons rendering those services. Therefore, the arguments that no yatri niwas should be built, or no educational institutions should be created in the name of the temple are specious and ignore the very concept of a temple as an institution.
The Madras High Court delivered a judgment in Mettur Beardsell Ltd vs RLC (Central) on 12/06/1996 (WP no. 2135 of 1987) stating that if an employee completed 4 years and 240 days in the 5th year, he is eligible for gratuity. However, many establishments situated outside Tamil Nadu are not following this legal position, and there is no overlapping judgment from the Supreme Court either. Could you please clarify whether this ruling is applicable across India or only to Tamil Nadu? Since the Payment of Gratuity Act is subsumed in the Code on Social Security, 2020, which was notified on 21/11/2025, will this legal position remain valid to date?
— S Vedhanarayanan, Thirumagal Nagar, Rajakilpakkam
Ever since the Gratuity Act was enacted in 1972, there have been several litigations. Many crucial cases were heard and decided by the Madras High Court, which were later approved by the Supreme Court. One such issue on the term "continuous service" due to conflicting opinions brought a parliamentary amendment. The decision referred to by you, given by the Madras High Court, is binding on authorities in this state, but also on all central government authorities outside the state. The opinion is in tune with the enactment. Further, the recent Labour Code even provides for gratuity for one year of a fixed contract of service.