IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2026 T.R. Ramesh, aged about 63 years, Flat 3B, Nataraj Apartments, 17, D’Silva Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600004 …Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Corporation Limited TUFIDCO Powerfin Tower, 490/3-4, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035 4. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd 4th Floor Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex No. 02, Wallajah Road, Chennai 600002 5. The Reserve Bank of India, Represented by its Chief General Manager, Department of Non-Banking Regulation, Central Office, 2nd Floor, Centre I, WTC, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005. 6. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. of 2026
T.R. Ramesh, aged about 63 years, Flat 3B, Nataraj Apartments,
17, D’Silva Road, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600004 …Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.
3. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Power Finance and
Infrastructure Corporation Limited TUFIDCO Powerfin Tower,
490/3-4, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035
4. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd
4th Floor Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex
No. 02, Wallajah Road,
Chennai 600002
5. The Reserve Bank of India,
Represented by its Chief General Manager,
Department of Non-Banking Regulation,
Central Office, 2nd Floor, Centre I, WTC, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005.
6. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance (Department of
Financial Services),
North Block, New Delhi – 110 001 ……Respondents AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
I, T.R. Ramesh, son of Dr. T.N. Ramachandran, Hindu, aged about 63 years, residing at Flat 3B, Nataraj Apartments, 17, D’Silva Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I am the petitioner herein and as such am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. I respectfully submit that I am preferring this instant public interest litigation, under
Article 226 of the Constitution assailing G.O.Ms. No.83, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE4-2), 17th February 2026, issued by the 1st Respondent, amending Religious Institutions (Custody, Investments and Lending or Borrowing of Moneys) Rules, 1963, framed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the HR&CE Act, 1959 and Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
3. I respectfully submit that I am the President of two organizations, namely, the Indic Collective Trust and the Temple Worshippers Society. I state that the said organizations have been: (a) espousing the cause of Hindu temples and their heritage structures; (b) striving to ensure their clean and efficient administration by creating public awareness; and (c) carrying out research and filing of Writ Petitions including Public Interest Litigations for the cause of protecting and maintaining Hindu temples of yore, amongst other public causes concerning Indic Civilization values.
4. I respectfully submit that this petition is primarily organised under the following heads of submissions:
I. The TN HR&CE Act, 1959
II. Executive Power of the State
III. Reserve Bank of India and its Regulatory Role on Financial Institutions
IV. TN Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
V. Poor Credit Rating of TNPFC
VI. Many Financial Irregularities in TNPFC
VII. Tamil Nadu Power Finance Infrastructure And Development Corporation.
Chennai.
VIII. Non deduction of TDS and the Inevitable Inferences Therefrom
IX. Impact of Wrong Classification of Public Deposits as Exempt Deposits
X. Tamil Nadu Transport Development Corporation Limited
XI. TNTDFC Carries a Live “Going Concern” Qualification from Its Statutory
Auditors
XII. A Live RBI Inspection Finding from 2022 Remains Unrectified
XIII. Custody and Deposit Rules under the TN HR&CE Act, 1959
XIV. Amendment to the Custody and Deposit Rules
XV. Arbitrary and Pernicious Nature of the Deposit Rules
XVI. RBI’s Failure to Set Right the Continuing Violations
I. The TN HR&CE Act, 1959
10. I respectfully submit that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter the “1959 Act” for brevity) came into force on
01.01.1960. It extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu, and it applies to all
Hindu Public Religious Institutions and endowments.
11. I respectfully submit that multiple set of Rules have been framed under the said 1959
Act under Section 116 of the said Act read with one or more sections from the said Act to carry out the purposes of the Act.
II. Executive Power of the State
12. I respectfully submit that while the Executive of the State can exercise powers as per this Article 162, to make any regulation which would have the effect of a law so long as it does not contravene any legislation already covering the field.
13. I respectfully submit that provisions of the 1959 Act and the Rules framed thereunder cannot overrule Central Acts and Rules passed by the Parliament either on the subjects coming under Union Government’s domain or even under concurrent subjects. In case of conflicts of legislations on concurrent subject the Union Law will prevail over the State Law.
14. I respectfully submit that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is a separate code governing the Hindu Religious Institutions.
Any wielding of power, real or assumed, by the Government relating to such Hindu Religious Institutions has to be well within the four corners of the said Statute.
III. Reserve Bank of India and its Regulatory Role on Financial Institutions
15. I respectfully submit that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) acts as the primary regulator and supervisor of the Indian financial system, primarily overseeing banks (public and private) and Non-Banking Financial Companies (hereinafter “NBFC” or “NBFCs” for brevity) under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It ensures financial stability, protects depositor interests, and maintains liquidity through licensing, prudential norms, and inspections.
16. I respectfully submit that “Prudential Supervision” is one of the most important functions of the RBI. It refers to the continuous monitoring and evaluation of financial institutions such as commercial banks, cooperative banks and non-banking financial companies to ensure they operate safely, transparently and in compliance with regulatory norms. Unlike “regulation” which involve the setting of rules such as Capital requirements and liquidity levels “supervision” is the enforcement and monitoring arm of RBI. The main goals of supervision are to prevent institutional failures and ensure the stability of India’s financial system.
IV. TN Power Finance & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
17. I respectfully submit that Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited is a Public Sector Undertaking incorporated on 27.06.1991 and registered as a Non-Banking Finance Company (Deposit Taking) with the Reserve Bank of India. This NBFC is wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
18. I respectfully submit that there are four State-owned Non-Banking Financial
Companies in Tamil Nadu dealing with infrastructure financing, viz., Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TNPFC” for brevity), Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TDFC” for brevity), Tamil Nadu Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TUFIDCO” for brevity) and Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TIDCO”). Among the four Non-
Banking Financial Companies in the State, Tamil Nadu Power Finance and
Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (TNPFC) and Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited (TDFC) are collecting public deposits and have been funding capital expenditure and working capital needs of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to “TANGEDCO” for brevity) and all State Transport Undertakings, respectively.
19. I respectfully submit that Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited
(TIDCO) and Tamil Nadu Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (TUFIDCO) have Deposit-taking licenses, but they do not collect public deposits.
20. I respectfully submit that in Financial Year 2025, TANGEDCO got bifurcated into two separate entities for generation and distribution, i.e., Tamil Nadu Power Generation Corporation Limited (hereinafter the “TNPGCL” for brevity) as the thermal power generation entity and Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation
Limited (hereinafter the “TNPDCL” for brevity) as the distribution entity. Accordingly, TNPFC’s disbursements have shifted to TNPGCL from July 2024. In addition, TNPFC has also commenced lending to Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited (TNGECL), a new entity in the renewable energy business formed through the merger of the Tamil Nadu Energy Development Agency (TEDA) and the renewable energy wing of TANGEDCO. As of December 2024, TNPGCL accounted for 92% of TNPFC’s loan portfolio, with TNGECL accounting for the balance.
21. I respectfully submit that the original company of TANGEDCO continues to hold 100% of the loan portfolio of TNPFC with 92% of it being taken by TNPGCL and the balance 8% being old wine a new bottle, viz., TNGECL.
V. Poor Credit Rating of TNPFC:
22. I respectfully submit that it is an undisputable fact that TNPFC has been given a BBB (-), (BBB Minus) rating by ICRA Limited for many years now. BBB(-) is the lowest rating that an NBFC can have to accept deposits from the public. Prior to 2022 ICRA held a rating of MA-(Stable) dating at least to 2020. ICRA confirmed this BBB- rating till January 2026 when the rating was reaffirmed and put on notice of withdrawal.
23. I respectfully submit that TNPFC may have a perceived advantage of being 100% owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and that is perhaps the only reason that prevents its rating from going below BBB (-). Any rating below BBB(-) would at once incapacitate TNPFC or any other NBFC from accepting or renewing deposits.
24. I respectfully submit that the BBB(-) rating of TNPFC could be very much based on the following repeatedly flagged four major credit weaknesses:
01. Extreme Borrower Concentration Risk:
TNPFC functions entirely as a dedicated funding arm of the State Power Sector viz., TANGEDCO and its avatars which have an accumulated loss of over Rs.1,62,00,000/- Crores.
02. The Borrower’s Weak Financial Profile:
TNPFC’s entire loan book is tied to the state power sector. TNPFC inherently absorbs the power sector’s financial stress. TANGEDCO, the only borrower of TNPFC, is incurring huge losses every year and there have been instances when they have had minor delays in debt servicing to the lenders.
03. Modest and Declining Profitability:
TNPFC does not function to maximise profits. In fact, there are serious questions raised in the audit reports, which if true, would undermine
TNPFC’s claimed profits by several crores. It is there to keep the chronic loss-making power grid of the State Government funded.
04. A Highly concentrated Funding Base:
Rather than having a diversified mix of bank loans, market bonds, and retail deposits, TNPFC relies entirely on its Fixed Deposit (FD) programme for borrowing.
• Furthermore, these deposits are not heavily diversified among retail investors. Most of its funding comes from bulk deposits placed by other government entities, educational institutions, and municipal corporations.
• ICRA consistently notes that the top 20 depositors account for roughly 40% to 58% of TNPFC’s total deposits, reflecting a heavy reliance on a small cluster of institutional depositors.
VI. Many Financial Irregularities in TNPFC:
25. I respectfully submit that that TNPFC is an NBFC with one of the most deplorable standards of accounting and recorded financial indiscipline. There have been many adverse findings by the Statutory Auditors of TNPFC which have not been answered satisfactorily by the management of TNPFC.
26. I respectfully submit that the following are the serious among the adverse remarks and findings made by the Statutory Auditors of TNPFC and the replies given thereto by management of TNPFC:
VII. Tamil Nadu Power Finance Infrastructure And Development Corporation
MANAGEMENT REPLY ON QUALIFIED OBSERVATION OF STATUTORY AUDITORS REPORT FOR THE FY 2024-25
Sr. No Qualified Observations in Statutory Auditor’s Report Management Reply
1 The Company has classified deposits amounting to Rs. 2,79,177.63 Lakhs received from Public temples which were endowed with grants and endowments by the erstwhile rulers have been brought under the
Sr. No Qualified Observations in Statutory Auditor’s Report Management Reply
temples as exempt deposits. In our view, these deposits do not fall within the exempted category as defined under the Reserve Bank of India Directions and should have been classified as Public Deposits.
Consequently, the Company’s reported public deposits as at 31st March 2025 are understated by Rs. 2,79,177.63 lakhs and should have been Rs.
13,41,856.05 as against the reported figure of ₹10,62,678.42 lakhs. This misclassification has resulted in non-compliance with certain prudential norms of the Reserve Bank of India relating to acceptance of public deposits.
supervision and administration of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department by the HR&CE Act, 1959.
Each public temple is a separate legal entity and a body corporate on its own. However, the temples are under the control, administration and supervision of the Board of Trustees who are appointed by the HR&CE Department/Government.
Therefore, in special audit carried out for classification of deposits as per directions of RBI, deposits made by temples under the control of HR&CE alone are classified as exempt deposits, while the deposits made by temples which are not under the control of HR&CE are classified as public deposits.
Moreover, Transport Development
Finance Corporation Ltd (TDFC), a Tamil Nadu Government owned Deposit taking NBFC with similar business model, follows similar method of classifying the deposits received from temples under the control of HR&CE as Deposit other than public deposit.
2 As per Note 24.25 to accompanying financial statements, an amount of Rs. 60,695.92 lakhs being excess interest accrued on deposits during the previous years has been included under Other
Financial Liabilities in Note 14 to the accompanying financial statements.
In the absence of sufficient and appropriate audit evidence, in our opinion, Other Financial Liabilities have been overstated to the extent of Rs. 60,695.92 lakhs and the same should have been written back during the The Company had provided accrued interest on various deposits at an average interest basis every year till 31 March 2020. With the introduction of CBMS software from the financial year 2020-21, the Company has transferred the interest accrued to the deposit itself.
Upon such change in accounting, It is seen that the interest outstanding in the GL Code No.2004059001 for Rs.540.45 Crs and GL Code No. 2004060001 for
Rs.66.53 Crs is held in excess.
The Government of Tamil Nadu has vide
G.O. (Ms.) No. 336 Finance (BPE) Department, dated 23 November 2023 has approved the merger of TN Power
Sr. No Qualified Observations in Statutory Auditor’s Report Management Reply
year. Audit opinion on the financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2024, was also qualified in respect of this matter.
Finance and Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited and TN Transport
Development Finance Corporation Limited. Therefore, the above stated amount shall be reviewed, and reversal shall be carried out in the consolidated books of accounts of TNPFC and JDFC.
3 As per Note 2.5(ii) to the accompanying financial statements, the Company has modified the terms of certain Loans (Financial assets) during the year. However, the Company has not accounted for such modification in accordance with the requirements of Ind AS 109Financial Instruments, which mandates recalculation of the gross carrying amount using the original effective interest rate and recognition of the resulting modification gain or loss in the Statement of Profit and Loss. Consequently, in the absence of such recognition, the profit for the year and the carrying amount of financial assets are overstated by approximately Rs. 39,112.20 lakhs. This results in noncompliance with the applicable RBI guidelines relating to dividend distribution by NBFCs and also impacts compliance with other relevant RBI regulatory requirements. The company has a board-approved policy for Interest Rate on loans and is subject to periodic review and revision by the Asset Liability Committee (ALCO), with final approval by the Board of
Directors. The interest rate is not fixed for the entire tenure of the loan; and the rate is subject to change based on a defined internal methodology. Further, the parties to the contract agree and acknowledge this framework, thereby recognising the loan as a floating rate arrangement with an implied and expected variability in the interest rate. Further, from a financial reporting perspective, change in the Effective Interest Rate (EIR) is a more appropriate and informative presentation wherein, result in no information loss to users of financial statements. The recent interest rate reset was undertaken purely on commercial grounds and does not stem from any financial distress or hardship expressed by the borrower. Considering the above, the company is of the opinion that the accounting treatment is in conformity with para B5.4.5 of Ind AS 109 for floating rate instruments and does not require any modification to the financial statements.
4 The Company has included certain long outstanding, unreconciled balances amounting to Rs. 1,692.34 Lakhs under “Cash and Cash
Equivalents” in the Balance Sheet. Management was unable to reconcile these balances. The A new software was implemented in the year 2020, without API Integration, due to operational challenges posed by covid19. Since multiple transactions is reflecting as a single line in the bank statement and also the records are pertaining to the year 2020, the reconciliation procedure has become
Sr. No Qualified Observations in Statutory Auditor’s Report Management Reply
management has represented that these balances are no longer recoverable and are expected to be written off in the subsequent financial year. In our view, recognition of these amounts as Cash and Cash Equivalents is not in accordance with the applicable accounting framework. Had these balances been written off during the year, Cash and Cash Equivalents would have been lower by Rs. 1,692.34 Lakhs and profit for the year would have been correspondingly overstated by the same amount.
complex even after continuous effort. Nevertheless, the company has been working since to reconcile the control ledger. The company has sought an opinion from the internal auditor regarding the impact of writing off the legacy ledger. Based on this opinion, the amount of ₹1,691.30 Lakhs, currently recorded under “Cash and Cash
Equivalents” in the balance sheet for the
FY 2024-25, will be written off in FY 2025-26 after evaluating its effects on financial statements.
5 The Company has reported expenditure of Rs. 1,733.60 Lakhs towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities during the year ended 31 March 2025, However, the Company has not furnished utilization certificates or other corroborative evidence in support of such expenditure. Accordingly, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the extent to which the aforesaid expenditure has been incurred for the purposes specified under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Company has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,733.60 Lakhs towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities during the year ended 31 March 2025. Out of this, the Company has provided utilization certificates for expenses amounting to Rs. 459 Lakhs. The remaining Rs. 1,274.60 Lakhs was spent on construction activities, which are still work in progress. The amounts spent on these ongoing projects have been duly accounted for, and utilization certificates for the expenditure incurred on construction activities will be provided upon the completion of the respective projects.
6 As disclosed in Note 2.5(ii) to the financial statements, the Company has classified certain financial assets as measured at fair value through Other Comprehensive Income (FVOCI)
In accordance with Ind AS 109 – Financial Instruments. However, the recognition of changes in fair The company has sold securities which were classified as fair value through other comprehensive income (FVOCI) in accordance with IND AS 109-Financial Instrument. The company is in process of identifying balance of the financial assets (Securities) sold since implementation of IND AS to calculate the fair value changes. On identification of balance,
Sr. No Qualified Observations in Statutory Auditor’s Report Management Reply
value (gains or losses) in Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) has not been carried out in compliance with the requirements of Ind AS 109, in the absence of adequate information, we are unable to ascertain the extent of understatement or overstatement of OCI, and the resulting impact, if any, on the financial position and results of the Company.
company shall evaluate its impact and will provide its effect in the financial statement in the due course.
27. I respectfully submit that from the above adverse observations of the statutory auditors which have not been answered satisfactorily the following concerns have come to light regarding certain financial positions of TNPFC:
a. The company’s reported public deposits are understated by Rs. 2,79,1.77 Crores due to the misclassification of deposits made by Hindu Temples as exempt deposits.
b. Other Financial Liabilities are overstated by Rs. 606.96 Crores due to excess interest accrued on deposits not being written back.
c. Profit for the year and the carrying amount of financial assets are overstated by approximately Rs. 391.12 Crores due to unrecognized modification losses on loans.
d. Cash and Cash Equivalents, as well as the profit for the year, are overstated by Rs. 16.92 Crores due to long outstanding, unreconciled balances that should have been written off.
e. The auditors could not verify Rs. 1,274.60 Lakhs of the reported Rs. 1,733.60 Lakhs CSR expenditure due to a lack of utilization certificates
or corroborative evidence (the management noted these are for ongoing construction activities).
28. I respectfully submit that from the year Assessment Year 2017-2018 to Assessment Year 2023-2024 there is an accumulated Rs. 771.39 Crores disputed amount on account of TDS not collected on interest on certain deposits and remitted to the Income-Tax Department.
29. I respectfully submit that such large-scale dereliction of duties by TNPFC in deducting Tax at source year after year and the sum total of such statutory failures adding up to Rs.771.39 Crores would show a pattern. Usually, deposits made by Government bodies would not attract tax and therefore there would be no need for deducting tax when interest is paid/accrued. It is therefore reasonable to make a surmise that besides the wrong classification of temple deposits as “exempt deposits”, there could be other non-governmental entities or public deposits with TNPFC that have been classified wrongly as such “exempt deposits”.
30. I respectfully submit that the Deposit in the name of “Registrar Bharathiar University – Contributory Pension Fund”, of about Rs. 436.77 Crores is not a direct Government Fund. Rather, it is the fund of an autonomous statutory body. Similar inference could be drawn regarding Dr. MGR University Anne Isebella Subramanyam Scholarship which has deposited about Rs.490.24 Crores.
31. I respectfully submit while the Statutory Auditors have flagged the wrong classification of temple deposits as “exempt deposits” by TNPFC, this petitioner humbly states that there could be more such instances of wrong classification which has led to non-deduction of tax at source and on time.
VIII. Non-deduction of TDS and the Inevitable Inferences therefrom
32. I respectfully submit that Para No. 24.12.2 containing the details of “disputed income-tax liability disputed in appeal” is reproduced below:
S.No. Nature of Dues Disputed
Amount (Rs. in Lakhs) Period
(Assessment Year) Forum
Where
Dispute is Pending
1
2
3
4
5
Claim u/s 36
Claim u/s 36
Claim u/s 36
Claim u/s 36
Claim u/s 36
57.68
34.70
142.31
23.00
29.68
AY 1998-99
AY 2003-04
AY 2005-06
AY 2006-07
AY 2007-08
ITAT
ITAT
ITAT
ITAT
ITAT
6 Disallowance u/s
36(i)(va) r.w.s
2(xd)(x) and u/s 14A 6.99 AY 2017-18 CIT(A)-III
7 Penalty u/s 270A in relation to
disallowance u/s 14A 2.77 AY 2018-19 CIT(A)-III
8
9
10
11
12
13
TDS demand u/s 201 and 201(1A)
TDS demand u/s 201 and 201(1A)
TDS demand u/s 201 and 201(1A)
TDS demand u/s 201 and 201(1A)
TDS demand u/s 201 and 201(1A)
TDS demand u/s 201 and 201(1A)
6,780.80
6,792.84
15,982.60
14,365.44
11,884.76
11,085.78
AY 2017-18
AY 2018-19
AY 2019-20
AY 2020-21
AY 2021-22
AY 2022-23
CIT(A)
CIT(A)
CIT(A)
CIT(A)
CIT(A)
CIT(A)
S.No. Nature of Dues Disputed
Amount (Rs. in Lakhs) Period
(Assessment Year) Forum
Where
Dispute is Pending
14
TDS demand u/s 201 and 201(1A)
TOTAL
10,246.72
85317.87
AY 2023-24
CIT(A)
33. I respectfully submit that serial nos. 8 to 14 above constitute disputed amount regarding TDS Demand u/s 201 and 201(1A) adds up to Rs. 851.39 Crores or 99.79% of the total disputed tax liabilities.
34. I respectfully submit due to non-deduction of mandatory TDS for interest paid by TNPFC to deposits received from Temples, penalty and interest proceedings against such temples have been taken and this is a reflection of the depositors suffering due to inefficiency and non-compliance of the deposit taker.
35. I respectfully submit that the rules regarding the deduction of tax at source (TDS) for exempt deposits in Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are primarily governed by Section 194A and Section 196 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.While NBFCs are generally required to deduct TDS on interest payments, specific entities and conditions allow for “exempt deposits” where no tax is withheld. The rules covering the field are as follows:
Category of Payee
Government / RBI
Banks / LIC / UTI
Entities Notified by
Central Government
TDS Rules – 1961 Act
No TDS (Section 196)
No TDS (Section 194A(3)(iii))
No TDS (Section 194A(3)(iii))
Category of Payee
General Public
Senior Citizens
Non-residents (NRIs)
TDS Rules – 1961 Act
10% TDS (if interest > ₹10,000)
10% TDS (unless 15H is filed)
30% TDS (under Section 195)
36. I respectfully submit that if one takes the disputed claim of TDS not deducted to the tune of Rs. 102.47 Crores (AY 2023-2024) as mentioned in the 34th annual report of TNPFC, the corresponding interest paid out would be Rs.1024.7 Crores. As a corollary the sum deposited would be Rs. 12,808.75 Crores if we assume the interest paid on these deposits to be 8% per annum. It is reasonable to conclude that because of wrong classification of public deposits as “exempt deposits” (including Rs.2700 Crores of Temple Deposits) TDS was not deducted from these deposits. This could have led to the claim of dispute regarding non-deduction of TDS to the tune of 102.47 Crores for the AY 2023-2024 found in the said 34th Annual Report.
37. I respectfully submit that the aftermath of wrong classification of certain public deposits as exempt deposits from the AY 2017-2018 to 2023-2024 resulting in serious violations of non-deduction of tax at source is clearly visible and ineluctable.
IX. Impact of Wrong Classification of Public Deposits as Exempt Deposits:
38. I respectfully submit that the misclassification of ₹3,000 crores of public deposits as “exempt deposits” by a Deposit-Taking NBFC (NBFC-D) is a catastrophic
regulatory violation. While an NBFC-D is legally permitted to accept public deposits, obscuring liabilities of this magnitude fundamentally breaks the Reserve Bank of
India’s (RBI) prudential framework and places depositor funds at severe risk. The impact of this could lead to any or all of the responses that Reserve Bank of India may undertake:
S. No. Consequence of Violation Impact on Credit Portfolio and
Corrective Action by RBI
01. Massive Default on Liquid
Asset Requirements a. Statutory Liquidity Breach: Under Section 45-IB of the RBI Act, 1934, an NBFC-D must maintain a specified percentage of its outstanding public deposits in unencumbered approved securities
(liquid assets).
b. Penal Interest: By hiding ₹3,000 crores or more from its public deposit ledger, the NBFC has evaded maintaining hundreds of crores in secure, liquid investments meant to ensure depositors can be repaid. The RBI imposes steep, compounding penal interest on the exact amount of the daily shortfall for every day the violation occurred.
02. Breach of Public Deposit
Ceilings a. Exceeding the NOF Cap: The RBI strictly caps the total quantum of public deposits an NBFC-D can hold, which is typically restricted to
1.5 times its Net Owned Fund (NOF) and requires the entity to maintain an investment-grade credit rating.
b. Unsecured Over-leverage: An undisclosed ₹3,000 crore or more liability almost certainly means the
NBFC has illegally exceeded its legal borrowing limits, absorbing massive public funds without the requisite capital buffer to absorb potential losses.
03. Possible Immediate
Operational Sanctions
a. Asset and Lending Freeze: To prevent the NBFC from further jeopardizing depositor funds or worsening its financial position, the RBI can invoke its powers to prohibit the company from creating any new assets, extending further credit, or making new investments.
b. Ring-fencing Cash Flows: The regulator will step in to ensure that any available liquidity is strictly ring-fenced and prioritized to meet the existing deposit obligations.
04. •
Severe Corporate & Legal Penalties if the violations are severe and opposed to
Depositors’ welfare Cancellation of Registration: The RBI has the authority to suspend or fully cancel the NBFC’s Certificate of Registration (CoR) for willfully violating the Directions on the Acceptance of Public Deposits and submitting false statutory returns.
• Management Supersession and Prosecution: The deliberate concealment of about ₹3,000 crores is treated as severe financial misrepresentation. The RBI can supersede the NBFC’s Board of Directors, appoint an administrator, and initiate criminal proceedings
against the promoters, directors, and key managerial personnel under the RBI Act and the Companies Act.
X. Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited
39. I respectfully submit that Tamil Nadu Transport Development Corporation Limited
(hereinafter “TNTDFC” for brevity) is a wholly owned Non-Banking Finance Corporation of Government of Tamil Nadu. Its primary or even its sole purpose is to provide financial assistance to the various State Transport Undertakings (STUs) of Government of Tamil Nadu.
40. I respectfully submit that it is public knowledge that the State Transport Undertakings in Tamil Nadu are reeling under heavy annual losses and they are highly dependent on working capital and other loans provided by TNTDFC. Further, they are highly reliant on the various subsidies provided by the State Government.
41. I respectfully submit that a close reading of the TNTDFC Annual Accounts for FY 2024-25 (the 50th Annual Report, adopted at the AGM on 16 October 2025), read with the independent ICRA and CARE Edge rating rationales, and the working of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Undertakings (STUs), demonstrates that this is a financially and fiduciarily indefensible decision. The corporation has:
a. A “Qualified Audit Opinion” with an express going-concern flag from the
Statutory Auditors;
b. “100 % loan concentration” in eight chronically loss-making STUs;
c. Among the “lowest investment-grade credit rating (BBB-)”;
d. “No NPAs on its books only because Government subsidies are being routed through it” to mask repayment defaults;
e. An “unresolved RBI Special Audit Report” from 2021 on classification of public deposits;
f. An “ECL provision of only ₹6.85 crore against a loan book of ₹20,046 crore”
(0.034 %), as against ₹80.27 crore mandated by IRACP norms;
g. An “RBI exemption from the single-borrower concentration limit”, exploited to the maximum;
h. A “proposed amalgamation with TNPFC” (G.O. Ms. No. 336 dated 23.11.2023) that has been pending since 2023 — creating structural uncertainty for any depositor with a 5-to-10-year horizon.
XI. TNTDFC Carries a Live “Going Concern” Qualification from Its Statutory
Auditors
42. I respectfully submit that the Independent Auditor’s Report on the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2025, signed jointly by M/s. Vivekanandan
Associates and M/s. A. Ambalatharasan & Associates (Page 37–40 of the 50th Annual Report), contains a “Basis for Qualified Opinion” which reads, materially:
43. I respectfully submit that “The events or conditions highlighted in (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3) of the audit report above indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.” The three conditions cited are:
a. STUs (the sole borrowers) have a weak financial profile and are primarily dependent on regular funding from the Government of Tamil Nadu, despite which fresh loans of ₹14,566.06 crore were granted during FY 2024-25, even where old loans were unpaid or delayed.
b. Of the fresh loans, ₹1,054.47 crore was simply used by the STUs to pay back earlier loans — i.e., “the corporation lent fresh money to itself to receive its
own old money back”. The auditors expressly say “We are also unable to verify the end use of the loans sanctioned.”
c. The going-concern status is “conditional upon continued Government bailouts” by way of student concession reimbursements, women free-travel subsidy and HSD diesel subsidy.
44. I respectfully submit that a “statutory going-concern flag” is the single most serious signal that an auditor can give short of an adverse opinion. “No prudent trustee of a temple may lawfully place corpus moneys into an entity whose own auditors have publicly questioned its survival.” It is of extreme concern that the audit report
carries the words “REASON FOR REVISION OF INDEPENDENT AUDIT REPORT IS AS PER PAG COMMENTS” (Page 37). The original audit report dated 20 August 2025 had to be revised on 07 October 2025 following observations from the Principal Accountant General (Audit-II), Tamil Nadu. The CAG’s supplementary audit thus identified matters serious enough to compel revision of a published audit opinion.
45. I respectfully submit that on 17 February 2026, the Government of Tamil Nadu amended the Religious Institutions (Custody, Investments and Lending or Borrowing of Moneys) Rules 1963, adding TNTDFC and TNPFC as permissible recipients of temple fixed deposits. This is directly material to the Review Petition on three grounds:
a. Article 27 — Compelled cross-subsidy of secular State activity: TNTDFC lends 100% of its corpus to eight loss-making State Transport Undertakings. Temple deposits placed with TNTDFC will, in economic substance, finance bus transport — a wholly secular State function. This is constitutionally indistinguishable from compelling a temple to pay a tax the proceeds of which are appropriated for maintenance of a secular State enterprise, contrary to Article 27.
b. Article 26(c) and (d) — Misapplication of corpus: TNTDFC carries a BBB- credit rating (the lowest investment-grade floor), a live going-concern qualification from its Statutory Auditors (FY 2024-25 Annual Report), and an ECL provision of only ₹6.85 crore against a ₹20,046 crore loan book. Directing temple money to such an entity through State-appointed Executive Officers violates the HR&CE Act’s own fiduciary standard and Article 26.
46. I respectfully submit that there exists no rationale or basis for the Respondents herein to have include both TNTDFC and TNPFC in the Amended Rules. Even casual
research into the audit reports of these entities would have revealed that these NBFCs do not merit any long term investments, especially from Hindu Religious Institutions.
XII. A Live RBI Inspection Finding from 2022 Remains Unrectified:
47. I respectfully submit that the Statutory Auditors’ qualified observations (Page 39) and the Director’s Reply (Page 13) jointly admit that:
a. An RBI inspection conducted on 25 February 2022 found that TDFC had not maintained a Register of Deposits as required under RBI Master Direction 2016-17/38.
b. A Special Audit was conducted on the back of the RBI inspection and placed before the Board on 29 July 2021 with a resolution to revise classification of deposits w.e.f. 01.04.2021.
48. I respectfully submit that however, the recommendations of the Special Audit Report have still not been implemented fully — even as of 31 March 2025. Consequently, the Statutory Auditors record that “we cannot comment upon the accuracy of the Classification of Public Deposits accepted as of 31-03-2025.” The auditors also expressly observe (Page 40):
“The deposits received from Educational Trusts, Public Charitable Trusts and Temples (excluding HR&CE Temples) do not fall within exempted deposits’ meaning.”
49. I respectfully submit that even here the auditors erred in classifying deposits of HR&CE Temples coming as “exempt” deposits (i.e., not within the prudential public deposit caps under the NBFC Acceptance of Public Deposits Directions, 2016).
50. I respectfully submit that each Hindu Temple is a separate individual entity and there is no temple that would come under the nomenclature of “HR&CE Temples” since no temples are owned by the HR&CE Department. This means all deposits using temple money are, in effect, being used to circumvent the NBFC-D deposit cap of 1.5x Net Owned Funds, while the depositor (the temple) loses the formal regulatory protections that “public deposits” attract — including SLR cover and Trustee oversight under the deposit-holder trust.
XIII. TNTDFC’s Statutory Liquidity is Pledged to a Trustee — But the Trustee Was
Appointed Only in April 2024
51. I respectfully submit that NBFCs-D are required to maintain 15 % SLR in liquid assets and to create a floating charge in favour of a Trustee for the benefit of deposit-
holders. TNTDFC’s Annual Report (Page 38) records that SBI CAP Trustee Company Limited was appointed only in April 2024 — i.e., nearly 49 years after the corporation began accepting deposits in 1975, and only after the matter was flagged in repeated RBI inspections. The SLR holdings are reported at 18.33 % (Note 4.17, Page 74) and HQLA at ₹2,266.41 crore (Note 5.19, Page 84). These provide a buffer only if the trustee charge is legally perfected, which (per Head 9) it may not be, given the unissued Section 281 NOC. For nearly half a century, temple deposits at TNTDFC have been held with no enforceable trustee charge to protect the depositor.
That is not a track record that supports the policy choice in the impugned G.O. Ms.
No. 83 by which the amendment has been carried out.
XIV. High Deposit Concentration Magnifies Run Risk:
52. I respectfully submit that the Note 5.7.3 (Page 77) of the auditor’s report discloses as follows:
“Total Deposits of twenty largest depositors: ₹6,09,839 lakhs … Percentage of Deposits of twenty largest depositors to Total Deposits: 58.47 %”
53. I respectfully submit that in other words, fewer than 20 institutional depositors account for almost 60 % of all deposits in TDFC. ICRA’s earlier (2019) rationale records that this institutional pool was “largely sourced from Government of Tamil Nadu owned/controlled entities including educational institutions and temples.” The breakdown in Note 17 (Page 90) shows public FDs at only ₹2,881 crore against “from others” (institutional, including temples) at ₹7,549 crore, i.e., institutional / temple money is more than twice the public money in TNTDFC.
54. I respectfully submit that this is a structural vulnerability since any concentrated withdrawal by a few large depositors could trigger a liquidity crisis. The deposit pool is, in effect, the State Government’s left-hand lending to its right hand through entities the Government controls (temples via HR&CE, educational trusts via the Higher Education Department, etc.). The genuine, retail public-depositor share is smaller meaning a true market-test of TDFC’s deposit franchise has never occurred. Adding to this is the fact that temple money and funds of educational institutions have been wrongly classified as Government Deposits – i.e. Exempt Deposits, it will definitely have an impact on the liquidity ratio TNTDFC will have to statutorily maintain.
55. I respectfully submit that the 50th Annual Report of TNTDFC is, on its face and on a careful reading of its qualified audit opinion, an unsuitable document to present to any HR&CE trustee as an inducement to deposit temple funds. The TNTDF
corporation:
a. is operating under a statutory going-concern warning;
b. has a 100 % concentrated loan book in eight loss-making STUs;
c. carries the lowest investment-grade rating (BBB-) on a standalone basis;
d. provides ECL of ₹6.85 crore against a ₹20,046-crore loan book while IRACP norms require ₹80.27 crore;
e. is subject to a pending RBI-driven Special Audit of deposit classification, unresolved since 2021;
f. operates under an RBI exemption from concentration norms that RBI itself has signalled intent to withdraw;
g. is the target entity in a pending amalgamation ordered in November 2023 that has not closed;
h. has an unissued Section 281 NOC that may void the trustee’s charge as against the tax department;
i. exhibits multiple statutory non-compliances under the Companies Act, 2013;
j. holds almost 60 % of its deposits with twenty institutional / Governmentcontrolled depositors, creating a circular financing model that adding more temple money will worsen the situation especially since temple deposits have been wrongly classified as exempt deposits.
56. I respectfully submit that against this, the marginal interest-rate pickup of TDFC fixed deposits over scheduled bank deposits is, in every economic sense, the price of carrying these risks rather than a return, temples should pursue. Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu, particularly those administered by HR&CE Department, should not invest their corpus or surplus moneys in TNTDFC notwithstanding the ill-advised express permission granted by the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 83 of 17 February 2026 which was issued without any research by experts made concerning the NBFCs named.
XIII. Custody and Deposit Rules under the TN HR&CE Act, 1959:
57. I respectfully submit that under the TN HR&CE Act, 1959 a set of Rules have been
framed viz., “RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (CUSTODY, INVESTMENTS AND LENDING OR BORROWING MONEYS) RULES, 1963” (hereinafter referred to in this writ petition as the “Deposit Rules” for brevity) dealing with deposits, investments, borrowing or lending of the funds of the religious institutions.
58. I respectfully submit that any investments made by a Hindu Religious Institution will have to comply with these Deposit Rules. Under Rule 7(1)(b) of the said Deposit Rules specifies the financial entities in which investments (as deposits) i.e. moneys in excess of what is required for the current Fasali year by the said institution, can be made. These entities, under the said Rule 7(1)(b) can be broadly classified as a bank or a Cooperative Bank or a Tamil Nadu Government Corporation that accepts public deposits.
XIV. Amendment to the Custody and Deposit Rules:
59. I respectfully submit that the 1st Respondent herein issued G.O. (Ms.) No. 83 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (R.E. 4.2) Department dated
17.02.2026 amending the “Deposit Rules” by which clauses (a) and (b) in sub-rule 1 of Rule 7 were substituted.
60. I respectfully submit that vide new clause b(vi) in sub-rule 1 of Rule 7 of the Deposit Rules, deposits for a period ranging 12 months to 120 months were permitted in the Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited.
XV. Arbitrary and Harmful Rationale of the Deposit Rules:
61. I respectfully submit that the Deposit Rules, 1963 particularly Rule 7(1)(b) seem to serve only the purpose of amassing deposits for government entities and government supported entities rather than providing for safe and prudential investment avenues for the funds of Hindu Religious Institutions. Explanation under Rule 7(1)(b)(iv) mandates that “Institutions are bound to deposit not less than 50% of their surplus funds in Cooperative Banks in long term deposits”. This is completely arbitrary and unjustifiable given the fact that there many nationalised and scheduled banks which have far better credit ratings than that of cooperative banks.
62. I respectfully submit that the entire set of Deposit Rules does not focus on what should be the deposit and investment norms for investing the surplus funds of the Hindu Religious Institutions in safe financial institutions that would give reasonable returns for such investments. There is not even a whisper of anything regarding credit rating of the investee institutions in the Deposit Rules.
63. I respectfully submit that as regulating authority the HR&CE Department, at best, can only formulate safe investment norms for Hindu Temples, Mutts and
Endowments. They cannot specify any financial institution by name and ask the Hindu Religious Institutions to invest in them, especially when the Rules do not give any reasons for naming such institutions.
64. I respectfully submit that the Rule making power under Section 116 of the 1959 Act empowers Government to make rules only to carry out the purposes of the said 1959
Act. The said Rule making power cannot be abused to direct Hindu religious Institutions to bankroll certain Government NBFCs especially when such NBFCs have a poor credit rating and their annual audit reports are fraught with serious instances of mismanagement, violations of law, and violations of procedure recorded in them by the auditors of such NBFCs.
65. I respectfully submit that when I had learnt of the deposits being made from the funds of Religious Institutions to the TNPFIDL, I had issued a notice dated 19.01.2026 to the 1st to 3rd Respondents, I had called out the various illegalities and issued with the deposit of Hindu Temple money with the said NBFCs.
66. I respectfully submit that thereafter, the Managing Director, of Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited had preferred a reply dated 10.02.2026, which is enclosed in the typed set of papers.
67. I respectfully submit that it was pursuant to this notice that the 1st Respondent decided to bring in an amendment to the 1963 Rules, by way of the impugned order. Despite the said amendment, the lacunae is not cured.
68. I respectfully submit that left with no other alternate or efficacious remedy, the present writ petition is filed on the following among other grounds.
GROUNDS
A. The impugned amendment in G.O.Ms. No.83 dated 17.02.2026 is ultra vires Section
116 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Section 116 confers only a limited power to frame rules for carrying out the purposes
of the Act. The impugned Rule therefore travels beyond the scope of the parent enactment and suffers from excessive delegation.
B. The HR&CE Act is intended to protect and preserve the properties and funds of Hindu Religious Institutions. The impugned amendment converts temple surplus funds into a funding source for Government controlled NBFCs. Such a purpose is wholly foreign to the object and scheme of the Act. Delegated power under Section 116 cannot be used to financially support Government corporations using funds for Hindu Temples.
C. The impugned notification confers arbitrary and uncanalised power upon the Executive. The Rule prescribes no minimum credit rating, depositor safeguards, diversification norms, exposure limits or risk assessment standards. It also provides no mechanism for periodic financial review of the specified NBFC. In the absence of statutory safeguards or guiding principles, the Rule amounts to naked and excessive delegation and is therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
D. The impugned amendment discloses no reason or statutory purpose for specifically including Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited within Rule 7(1)(b). No financial assessment, risk evaluation or objective criteria has been disclosed. The Rule also prescribes no safeguards such as minimum credit rating, exposure limits or liquidity protections. The amendment is therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
E. The respondents failed to consider the admitted financial condition of Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. The statutory audit reports disclose serious concerns relating to misclassification of deposits, RBI compliance issues, disputed tax liabilities, concentration risks and accounting irregularities. Despite such adverse findings, the respondents permitted long-term deposits of temple funds in the said NBFC for periods extending up to 120 months.
F. Temple funds are dedicated religious endowments impressed with a public trust. They cannot be treated as ordinary Government funds or utilised to strengthen the financial position of Government controlled corporations. The 1st Respondent is bound to act solely in the interests of the religious institutions concerned. The impugned amendment substantially interferes with the financial autonomy of Hindu
Religious Institutions and thereby violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
G. The impugned amendment is a colourable exercise of delegated power. The amendment does not seek to protect temple funds or improve financial prudence. Its true object is to augment the deposit base of Tamil Nadu Power Finance and
Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. Delegated legislation under the HR&CE Act cannot be used to achieve collateral governmental financing objectives unrelated to the purposes of the Act.
H. The Petitioner reserves the right to raise additional grounds at the time of oral arguments.
69. I respectfully submit that I have filed a number of Writ Petitions, including PILs before this Hon’ble Court in my individual capacity and as also the President of the Indic Collective Trust and the Temple Worshippers Society, all relating to issues of heritage, culture and/or proper administration of Temples. Any other cases that may be left out are inadvertent and the Petitioner seeks the leave of this hon’ble Court to add them as directed. The details of the Writ Petitions have been enumerated hereunder:
a. W.P. No. 14256 of 2020: Filed as President of Indic Collective Trust praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Government and the Hindu Religious Endowments Department to conduct only external audit as required under law for the Hindu Religious Institutions under the administrative control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The matter is pending before this Hon’ble Court.
b. W.P. No 13502 of 2020: challenging the Presence of Executive Officers in about 70 Temples without any legally sustainable orders of appointment ever made for such temples for more than 50 Years. The matter is pending before this Hon’ble Court.
c. W.P. Nos. 9869, 9872 and 9878 of 2020: Filed as President of the Indic Collective Trust challenging the illegal transfer of funds from Hindu Temples by the 2nd Respondent herein. This Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant an order of stay of such transfer of funds in the aforesaid Petitions.
d. W.P. Nos. 32698 of 2019: Challenging, G.O. No.318 of 2019, the taking over lands belonging to Hindu Temples and Endowments and giving them to encroachers in such lands. This Hon’ble court was pleased to grant an interim stay order against the Government Order in respect of Hindu Temple and Endowment Lands.
e. W.P. No. 2290 of 2017: Challenging Conditions for appointment of Executive Officers. This Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the said petition. These Rules are now challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by Indic Collective Trust in Writ Petition 1432 of 2019 along with other provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act, 1959
f. W.P. No. 17468 of 2016: Challenging Preservation and Maintenance of Religious Institution Rules. This Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition with suggestions to the Tamil Nadu Government to amend the said Rules keeping with the times.
g. W.P. Nos. 25429 to 25433 of 2015: Challenging the presence of Executive Officers in five temples. Disposed of as Rules were framed albeit with retrospective effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe in the Special Leave Petition filed against this common order that
“…it appears to us that the High Court has not considered it on merits, whether the Rules are retrospective or not, as there is no consideration on merits of the submissions in the impugned order…”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to permit this Petitioner to file review petitions before the Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court. The said review petitions are pending before this Hon’ble Court.
h. W.P. Nos. 11412 and 11413 of 2015: As Secretary-General of the Temple Worshipers Society: Challenging the appointment of servants of HR&CE
Department as “Fit Persons” (Super Trustees) of Hindu Temples. These Writ Petitions are pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court.
i. As President of the Temple Worshippers Society, I have filed a PIL W.P. No. 21906 of 2021, challenging the vires of the T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Employees (Conditions of Service) Rule 2020, the Hon’ble First Bench of this Hon’ble Court was pleased to order notice and pass an interim order in the matter.
j. I have also filed a PIL, W.P. 23070 of 2021 challenging the Foreign Service Deployment of members of the HR&CE Department in various temples, which is in clear violation of the HR&CE Act, 1959 and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the said Writ Petition on 21.02.2022 while recording in the said order that the Government Servants placed on foreign service would revert to their parent departments or the departments concerned would pass appropriate orders for them, but, in any case, they will not be continued in same manner indefinitely.
k. W.P. Nos. 22916, 22921 and 22926 of 2021, filed as President of the Indic Collective Trust and also as the 2nd petitioner, I have filed a PIL challenging the announcements made concerning Hindu Temple, their funds and properties by the Hon’ble Minister of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in the Legislative Assembly including melting of gold in Temples by the Respondents herein as devoid of any legal authority and are in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to stay the melting of Temple Gold and have further given the liberty to this Petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court if there any exigencies by its interim order dated 28.10.2021.
l. W.P. Nos. 24156 of 2021, in my individual capacity challenging the opening of colleges using the funds of Religious Institutions without following the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. This Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue an order of interim stay forbearing the Respondents herein from opening 6 Colleges using temple funds by its order dated 15.11.2021.
m. W.P. No. 3371 of 2022, in my capacity as the President of the Indic Collective Trust had filed a PIL praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to recall the executive officers appointed under Section 45 of the TN HR&CE Act, 1959 in about 18 temples where the appointments were made between the year 1966 and 2008 as the said Executive Officers were functioning beyond a period of five years. This Hon’ble Court had dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that it was hit by latches and was filed by a delay of 10-12 years.
n. W.P. No. 20467 of 2023 – challenging the vires of G.O. (Ms) No. 115, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (R.E. 3-2) Department, dated 17.05.2022, passed by the 1st Respondent pertaining to the Chidambaram Temple.
o. W.P. No. 1205 of 2024 – Challenging G.O. (Ms) No.138 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (R.E.1-2) Department dated 27.03.2023 issued by the Commissioner HR&CE.
p. W.P. No. 11240 and 11248 of 2024 – challenging G.O. (Ms) No. 77 dated 30.03.2022 and (J.O. (Ms) No. 225 dated 24.12.2021 issued by the Tourism,
Culture and Religious Endowments (R.E. 5-1) Department.
q. W.P. No. 13955 of 2024 – challenging G.O. (MS) No. 323 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (R.E. 3-1) department dated 4.09.2023 passed by the lst respondent quash the same pertaining to Sri Kapaliswarar Temple where lands owned by the Temple have been let out at very meagre rents. The same is pending.
r. W.P. No. 14521 of 2024 – PIL pertaining to colleges using Temple money, similar to the grounds in an earlier writ petition in relation to other Temple lands. The matter is pending before an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
s. W.P. No. 36760 of 2024 – to restore, reconstruct and renovate the Sri Ekambareswara Temple, Sri Indumbanar temple and Sri Ilaiyanar Temple at
Tiruvannamalai
t. W.P. No. 19084 of 2025 – Challenging construction of shopping complex in the land belonging to Sri Nellaippar Temple, Tirunelveli.
u. W.P. No. 11204 of 2025 – Challenging various civil works in Temples, carried out using Temple resources.
70. I respectfully submit that to the best of my knowledge, no other PIL has been filed praying for similar relief(s) before any Court or legal forum, and further, to the best of my knowledge, there are no similar Petitions pending before this Hon’ble Court.
71. I respectfully submit that I am an Income Tax Assessee, and my Permanent Account Number is AEPPR4560K and my AADHAAR number is 2585 0452 9082 and I am a permanent resident of Chennai. I state that my annual income is about Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs only). I submit that I am a postgraduate in Commerce and was formerly in the management of a Multi-National Bank.
72. I respectfully submit that I have filed this instant writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation and that this PIL is filed using my own funds. I state that I have no personal interest in the case. I respectfully submit that I undertake to pay the costs imposed by the Hon’ble Court if this Writ Petition is found to be frivolous or vexatious.
73. I respectfully submit that certain interim reliefs are sought with in order to protect the interest of the funds belonging to Hindu Religious Institutions, their Deities and Devotees. No prejudice will be caused to the Respondents herein; however immense hardship would be caused to the interests of devotees and of the Religious
Institutions.
74. In the circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of G.O.Ms. No.83, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE42), 17th February 2026, issued by the 1st Respondent, amending Religious
Institutions (Custody, Investments and Lending or Borrowing of Moneys) Rules, 1963, framed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, pending disposal of the instant writ petition and thus render justice.
75. In the circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an Interim Injunction on the deposit of any funds of Religious Institutions in any NBFC or Bonds with a rating below AAA- by the Respondents herein pending
disposal of the instant writ petition and thus render justice.
76. In the circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF DECLARATION, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring G.O.Ms. No.83, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE4-2), 17th February 2026, issued by the 1st Respondent, amending Religious Institutions (Custody, Investments and Lending or Borrowing of Moneys) Rules, 1963, framed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, as ultra vires the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Endowments & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and pass any such further or other orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper from the facts and circumstance of the case and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai Before me,
On this the 18th day of May 2026
And he having signed his name in my presence. Notary, Chennai
[20/05, 16:33] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2057054518442184975
[20/05, 16:33] sekarreporter1: [20/05, 16:32] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/CncetAYbL2c?si=IQFCOkWfbVAgx1VP
[20/05, 16:32] sekarreporter1: Detention of #Savukku Sankar under goondas act revoked
[20/05, 16:29] sekarreporter1: ..
