Temple case affidavit THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2025 T.R. Ramesh, S/o. Dr. T.N. Ramachandran Flat 3B, Nataraj Apartments, 17, D’Silva Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. …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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. of 2025
T.R. Ramesh,
S/o. Dr. T.N. Ramachandran
Flat 3B, Nataraj Apartments,
17, D’Silva Road, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004. …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 State Information Commissioner
The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission
Block No. 19, Government Farm Village
Panepet, Nandanam
Chennai 600 035. …Respondents
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
I, T.R. Ramesh, son of Dr. T.N. Ramachandran, Hindu, aged about 63 years, Senior
Citizen, 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 am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. ⁠I submit that I am an interested person under Section 6(15) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (hereinafter the “1959 Act” for brevity) this is stated as a matter of abundant caution pertaining to locus standi & maintainability of the present case, as the same should not be put against me by the Respondents to dilute the WP and this Writ Petition is primarily about the failure of the Respondents in their duties cast upon them under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter the “RTI Act” for brevity). I. The Instant Writ Petition:
3. I respectfully submit that this Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein to publish all information mandated under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, including but not limited to
Government Orders and approvals issued by the Religious Endowments Department, notifications, approvals and orders issued by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, tender and other notifications involving funds and properties of Hindu Religious Institutions issued by authorities in the said Department, all within a reasonable time after their issuance as fixed by this Hon’ble Court and thus render justice.
4. I respectfully submit that the 1st Respondent is the State Government under whose domain the law relating to administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu fall under. The 2nd Respondent is the Corporation Sole of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and is a Government Servant as per the
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter
“the HR&CE Act”). Therefore, the 1st and 2nd Respondents are public authorities as defined under Section 3(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter the “RTI Act”).
5. I respectfully submit that as stated above, the 1st and 2nd Respondents carry out the various functions contemplated under the HR&CE Act, in the course of which Government Orders on various subjects are passed, tender notifications etc. are to be issued.
6. I respectfully submit that further, the HR&CE Act also contemplates various other activities such as calling for objections and opinions from “persons having interest” in the affairs of a Temple or Mutt as mandated under various provision of the HR&CE Act and its accompanying Rules.
7. I respectfully submit that significantly, other important information pertaining to the use of Temple funds, properties and other resources, at the behest of the 1st and 2nd Respondents or their men or agents are also significant information that carry significant public interest and in the interest of transparency must be made known to all.
8. I respectfully submit that these disclosures are necessary in public interest and must be available to all devotees in a computerised i.e. electronic and readily available/downloadable form. However, it is seen that these disclosures or publications are never made.
9. I am advised to state that Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which fully came into force on 12th October 2005, imposes mandatory duties on Public Authorities to keep in readiness and easily accessible forms all information and records and to publish various details about their organization, functions, and records within 120 days of the Act’s enactment and to update these publications annually.
10. I respectfully submit that the RTI Act came into force almost 2 decades ago. However, unfortunately it appears that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have deliberately failed to publish even the most obvious documents such as Government Orders and other disclosures contemplates under the Act on their website www.hrce.tn.gov.in.
11. I am advised to state that such deliberate dereliction of duties cast upon them under the RTI Act, 2005 is against the aims and objectives and the intention of the RTI Act. It defeats the very purpose of the said enactment which aims for transparency and accountability in the administration of offices by public authorities.
12. I respectfully submit that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter, in this petition, the “1959 Act” for brevity) is a Special enactment governing the administration of the Hindu Religious Institutions especially temples in Tamil Nadu. The said 1959 Act came into force on 01.01.1960 after getting the assent of the President. The said 1959 Act lays down various due processes of law in the administration and utilisation of the funds and properties of Hindu Religious Institutions including annual budgets, property registers, alienation of properties, utilisation of surplus funds, audit of religious institutions, approvals regarding renovation of temples and civil works
in temples and temple properties, etc. Furthermore, it is implied and needless to state the deplorable administration of the Hindu temples by the Respondents in the Government and the HR&CE Department, starting from allowing
encroachment in temple lands, to theft of idols, to issuing various contracts for impermissible purposes like the establishment of commercial shops and auditoriums, using temple funds and properties.
13. I respectfully submit that there are 668 posts of the Executive Officers of different cadres in the HR&CE Department administering directly more than 3000 temples and endowments.
The following chart would show the sanctioned strength of Executive Officers in the HR&CE Department:
Sl. No. Grade of Executive Officer No. of Posts
1. Joint Commissioner 11
2. Deputy Commissioner 9
3. Assistant Commissioner 27
4. Executive Officer – Grade I 100
5. Executive Officer – Grade II 117
6. Executive Officer – Grade III 250
7. Executive Officer – Grade IV 154
The details of these Executive Officers i.e. the organisation structure, powers and duties should be mandatorily given under Section 4(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, for the past 19 years no such details have been provided since all of these Executive Officers are functioning in the temples and endowments only by a fraud on the statute. That is to say, there are no legally valid orders of appointment of any of these Executive Officers ever issued by an appropriate authority under any of the enabling provisions of the 1959 Act or earlier Acts. It is for this reason that the 2nd Respondent ensures that there is nothing provided as required under the RTI Act available on the HR&CE Department’s Website.
II. Directions of the Apex Court concerning Civil Works using Temple Funds
14. I respectfully submit that a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by its order dated 12.03.2024 in Special Leave Petition No. 9495 of 2022 filed by me, ruled that
“the authorities under the MPPRI Rules (Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules) will have to comply with the relevant regulations or notifications, wherever applicable. Any alteration/modification made in the temple should not be contrary to or in contravention of any enactment, rules/regulations which are applicable”.
Furthermore, almost 99% of the civil works carried out by the instrumentalities in the HR&CE Department using funds of Hindu Temples, endowments and their properties are in violation of the Management and Preservation of Properties of
Religious Institutions Rules (MPPRI Rules), Utilisation of Surplus Funds Rules, Utilisation of Surplus Funds Rules framed under the 1959 Act and without proper approvals of the local authorities and more importantly in violation of the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Act, 2012, and Section 116(2) (xvii) (xviii) and (xix) of the 1959 Act.
15. I respectfully submit that the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein and their subordinates in the HR&CE Department who are consistently and chronically carrying out illegalities in the administration and misappropriation of funds of Hindu Religious Institutions in Tamil Nadu, which are under their administrative control are naturally averse to transparency. Further, the said Respondents herein, favoured by deliberate active indifference and dereliction of duties by the 3rd Respondent, serving as connivance for them over many years, have refrained from fulfilling the mandatory duties under Section 4 of the RTI Act for almost 20 years.
III. Deliberate Failures of the HR&CE Department regarding RTI:
16. I respectfully submit that some of the specific instances of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by the 1st and 2nd Respondents include but are not limited to the following:
i. Failure to publish or upload mandatory information pertaining to their offices
(e.g., Office of the Chief Engineer – HR & CE Department, Special Officer – Temple Lands, Regional HR & CE Department offices).
ii. Arbitrary hijacking of websites of about 40 Hindu temples and Devasthanams, previously listed on the HR & CE Department’s website, and implementing a diluted and truncated website through a fraudulent centralized Integrated Temple Management System (ITMS), a system which has no legal sanction and involves unlawful appropriation of temple funds for its maintenance.
iii. Devising deliberate crafty and devious methods to deny information to RTI applicants, such as not responding expeditiously as required under Section 7(1) and stretching refusal replies to the maximum 30-day period, even for one-line refusals. Such denials are often not covered under Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act and are therefore unlawful.
iv. Repeatedly denying the Petitioner’s requests for inspection of documents under Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act over the past 3 years or more, with the PIO of the 2nd Respondent maintaining silence on recent requests. Specific instances include unanswered letters dated 26-May-2017, 31-May-2017, and an application dated 11.09.2024. Officials, including a Joint Commissioner and an Additional Commissioner, have allegedly feigned ignorance about the right to inspect records.
v. Unabashed denials of information stating matters are “work-in-progress” or under “continuous process”. This includes refusing access to Government Orders already issued and notified, estimates for civil works that have been approved, and information on approved tenders or issued contracts, which are matters of enormous public interest involving temple funds and properties. vi. Denial of temple audit reports under the pretext that “Joint Sitting” meetings to decide on audit objections are not complete, despite over 1.8 million audit objections pending since 1986. This refusal also violates an order of the State Chief Information Commissioner dated 20.10.2016.
vii. The utilisation and grant of funds under the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Common Good Fund are shrouded in complete darkness. The 2nd Respondent is the administrator of this Common Good Fund and there are multiple evidences to show that he is treating the said Fund as a purse belonging to him. In many cases the HR&CE Department itself is an applicant seeking funds therefrom and this is totally against the Administration of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Common Good Funds Rules framed under the 1959 Act.
V. Chronic Failures of the State Information Commission:
17. I respectfully submit that the 3rd Respondent, the State Information Commission, has chronically failed in its duties to ensure compliance by the 1st and 2nd Respondents with the RTI Act. These include:
i. Turning a blind eye for almost 20 years towards the non-compliance of the mandatory duties by the Religious Endowments Department and the HR & CE Department under the RTI Act, 2005.
ii. Failing to receive compliance reports from these two departments for many years.
iii. Not publishing details of annual reports to be placed before the State
Legislature for the past 3 years.
iv. Not taking credible steps against Public Authorities in these departments despite complaints from the Petitioner, suggesting collusion. Annual reports before 2020 show no penalties imposed for such failures.
v. Particularly failing to ensure adherence to Section 4 of the RTI Act by the
1st and 2nd Respondents.
vi. In addition, the State Information Commissioners handling the Right to Information petitions relating to the Public Information Officers (PIO) of the HR&CE Department take extraordinary time to take action on the refusal of information by such PIOs.
vii. On many occasions for arbitrarily closing the Complaints and 2nd Appeals filed against the PIOs of the HR&CE Department without informing the citizens who are the complainants and the 2nd Appellants.
IV. Notice issued by the Petitioner:
18. I respectfully submit that due to the persistent non-compliance, this Petitioner issued a Notice dated 02.12.2024 (referred to as “the Notice”) to all three Respondents, drawing attention to previous notices dated 14.06.2017 and
25.02.2020, and the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India and Ors. (judgments dated 17.08.2023 and 09.10.2023).
19. I respectfully submit that the Notice specifically demanded that the 1st and 2nd
Respondents:
i. Immediately fulfil their obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act, upload all proactive disclosure details, and send a compliance report to the State
Information Commission by 15.12.2024.
ii. Ensure all records are duly catalogued, indexed, computerized, and networked for easy access, with a compliance report to the State Information Commission by 15.12.2024. iii. Ensure a robust online RTI filing and information access system for the departments and temples. iv. Periodically upload specific information on their websites and temple websites, including:
a. Annual audit reports of temples within 48 hours of submission.
b. Government Orders concerning temple administration, funds, properties, and civil works.
c. Notifications under various sections of the TN HR&CE Act, 1959 and the Rules framed under the said Act, and decisions/circulars of the Commissioner.
d. Tenders/contracts for civil works in temples over 100 years old, and/or works outside temple precincts exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/-, along with approvals.
v. Ensure first appeal decisions under RTI are heard within 30 days and uploaded online.
vi. Ensure every reply from Public Authorities contain specific details like PIO’s name/designation, appellate authority details, and clear information on additional charges, if any.
20. I respectfully submit that the Respondents herein particularly the 3rd Respondent, State Information Commissioner has a bounden duty to following the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down in the afore-cited Kishan Chand Jain Case. A 3-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the said Judgment directed “the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include instructions under O.M. dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Department. For this purpose, the Commissioners will also be entitled to issue recommendations under sub- Section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for taking necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act.”
21. I respectfully submit that my Notice afore-cited also requested the 3rd Respondent to ensure the 1st and 2nd Respondents fulfil their Section 4 obligations by 15.12.2024, ensure timely publication of GOs and notifications, ensure publication of Commissioner’s decisions/orders within 24 hours, levy maximum penalties on erring PIOs, conduct a transparency audit within 30 days, issue directions under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, to order taking of penal/departmental action against failing PIOs, publish steps taken on its website, and acknowledge complaints/appeals within 3 working days and address grievances within 30 days complying with the Chief Secretary’s D.O. Letter
No.1137/CS/SG/2024, dated 26.11.2024.
22. I respectfully submit that this petitioner received a reply dated 20.02.2025 from the 2nd Respondent (Commissioner, HR & CE Department). A copy of the said reply is annexed hereto in the typed set.
23. I respectfully submit that the said reply dated 20.02.2025 from the 2nd Respondent fails to provide any specific evidence of compliance with the numerous points raised in the Petitioner’s Notice, particularly regarding the proactive disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) and the specific information sought to be published periodically (audit reports, GOs, tenders, etc.). The blanket and bland denials do not suffice as proper response to the serious and specific allegations of long-standing non-compliance.
24. I respectfully submit that the 1st and 3rd Respondents have not sent any replies to my notice and they are maintaining a stoic silence to the allegations I had made in my notice dated 02.12.2024.
25. I respectfully submit that the failure of Respondents 1 and 2 to comply with the RTI Act, and the failure of Respondent 3 to enforce compliance, directly affects the public’s right to information, transparency, and accountability in the functioning of public authorities dealing with religious endowments and temples, which involve significant public funds and properties is in complete violation of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and their duties under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
V. G.O.s of Religious Endowments Department completely hidden:
26. I respectfully submit that not only this Petitioner but the public at large have the fundamental right to know the G.Os. and orders passed by the Respondents especially when the same involves the utilization of funds and properties belonging to Hindu public temples and in light of the mandate imposed by the provisions of the HR&CE Act. The Respondents ought to have published the same in a manner accessible to the public at large in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. It is pertinent to point out there does not exist any catalogue of G.O.s. and office orders passed by the Respondent anywhere in an electronic accessible format to the public at large.
27. I respectfully submit that the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein have systematically hidden the Government Orders that are being regularly issued regarding utilisation of the funds and properties of the Hindu Public Temples, administrative approvals issued under the Management and Preservation of the
Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, the Utilisation of Surplus Funds Rules,
Alienation of Properties of Religious Institution Rules, Review orders under
Section 114 of the 1959 Act and the appointment of trustees (including Fit Persons) to religious Institutions under Section 47(1)(a)(iii).
28. I respectfully submit that if one visits the page in the website of Government of Tamil Nadu, relating to publication of Government Orders (hereinafter “G.O. or
G.O.s” for brevity) of the Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu one would notice that the last G.O. that was published in a downloadable “.pdf” format was in the year 2022. It is also true that only one such G.O. relating to Tourism Department was published in the year 2022. No G.O. relating to Religious Endowments Department was published in the said year of 2022. Screenshots of the same have been enclosed herewith.
29. I respectfully submit that only a handful of G.O.s relating to Religious Endowments Department were published in the Government website as well as in the Stationery Department Web Page where Government Orders and Government Orders Extraordinaire are published and none of these G.O.s were regarding Temple administration and/or utilisation/alienation of Temple funds and properties.
VI. Final notice issued on 02.09.2025
30. I respectfully submit that in addition to the notice issued on 02.12.2024, I had issued another notice dated 02.09.2025, particularly relating to non-publication of G.O.s to the 1st and 3rd Respondents herein. The said respondents did not even acknowledge receipt of the notice. It is superfluous to mention they did not adhere to the compliance of their duties in ensuring the publication of the Government Orders demanded in the said notice of 02.09.2025.
31. I respectfully submit that due to intransigent stand of the Respondents here and devoid of any alternate remedy, this Petition had no other option than approaching this Hon’ble Court through this Writ Petition, as I have exhausted all my administrative remedies. I have not preferred any writ petition praying for the reliefs prayed for hereunder.
32. I respectfully submit that from the above, the Petitioner is left with no other efficacious or alternate remedy and is therefore constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following among other grounds.
GROUNDS
A. The Respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by not cataloguing, indexing and publishing details of their organisation, powers, duties, rules, notifications, Government Orders, audits, tenders and budgets in an accessible and computerised form. Such non-compliance defeats the very object of the Act.
B. The Petitioner had issued detailed representations and notices dated
02.12.2024 and 02.09.2025 demanding compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act. The 1st and 3rd Respondents did not reply at all, and the reply dated 20.02.2025 of the 2nd Respondent is evasive and bereft of any proof of compliance. The continued silence and inaction establish a wilful dereliction of duty.
C. Temple funds and properties are being utilised for civil works and other decisions without prior publication of approvals, orders and resolutions as required under law. This practice denies devotees and the public their statutory right to know how temple resources are being applied, and violates the mandate of transparency.
D. The statutory safeguards under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, including budgets, audits, utilisation and alienation rules, cannot be meaningfully enforced without proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act. The deliberate withholding of such information renders the statutory scheme nugatory.
E. The Petitioner reserves the right to raise additional grounds at the time of admission and oral submissions.
33. I respectfully submit that the non-disclosure of various activities that have a direct bearing on the properties and funds of Hindu Religious Institutions by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and their men and agents, may result in irreparable harm and damage to the same if the same are shrouded in secrecy. Therefore, certain interim reliefs must be granted, especially pertaining to tender notifications, the call for all objections and the objections preceding the same, pending disposal of this writ petition.
34. In the circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents herein and all Religious Institutions under their administration from carrying out any tender notifications and all proceedings by the appropriate authorities under law preceding the same that have not been published as per Section 4 of the RTI Act, pending the disposal of the writ petition and thus render justice.
In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein to publish all information mandated under Section 4 (1) (b)(c) and (d) of the Right to Information Act, including but not limited to Government Orders and approvals issued by the Religious Endowments Department, notifications, approvals and orders issued by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, tender and other notifications involving funds and properties of Hindu Religious Institutions issued by authorities in the said Department, all within a reasonable time after their issuance as fixed by this Hon’ble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai BEFORE ME. on this day of October, 2025. The contents of this affidavit Was read over and explained to the deponent in English
And signed his name in my
presence. ADVOCATE: CHENNAI