There is utter lack of clarity in the manner by which the audit is performed, and by whom. We are constrained to say this in the light of the records produced now and the fact that substantial expenses have been incurred without following the statutory process and the requirements under the Rules. As far as the Local Fund Audit Department is concerned, we are unaware of what the constituents of the LFAD are, how many Chartered Accountants and accountants are employed, and what the systems are for management of the financials and accounts of the religious institutions in the State. (para 90)

Sri Kallazhagar Temple – DB Order – 23.01.2026 – Points

1.                  A fit person in charge of the temple is in gross contravention of the Act. (Para 46)

2.                  The financials of the temple have been placed before us to show that the income is in the region of several crores annually. To have such a temple managed by a Fit Person and an Executive Officer is a travesty of the Scheme of the Act. (Para 47)

3.                  The financials of the temple have been placed before us to show that the income is in the region of several crores annually. To have such a temple managed by a Fit Person and an Executive Officer is a travesty of the Scheme of the Act. (Para 48)

4.                  In the absence of a Board of Trustees, the decision taken for calling of a Master Plan is essentially that of the Executive Officer and the other authorities of the Department. The presence of a Fit Person is inconsequential, irrelevant, contrary to the Statute and has no meaning, leading to the conclusion that the Master Plan of the year 2020 is to be eschewed for all practical and legal purposes.

5.                  The above announcement and consequent Resolution have no legal sanction whatsoever and are vitiated for several reasons. Firstly, the State has no role in envisioning such projects in respect of temples without reference to the temples themselves, meaning the Trustees. It is not for the State to make grandiose announcements relating to deployment of temple funds, that too in the region of Rs.40.00 crores. They have, to put it bluntly, no business to deploy temple funds unilaterally and as part of some ill-conceived operation to upgrade temples.

6.                  There is nothing to show how the temples have been selected and on what basis the facilities have been identified as being necessary for the temple.

7.                  Such a decision should have been taken by the Trustees after thorough consultation and deep introspection about the necessity, the cost and other factors. All this has been given a go-by and the State has acted as though the temple is its personal fiefdom where real estate is abundantly available for crass commercial development.

8.                  No material is produced before us to indicate that the authorities have applied their minds as to the relevant statutory provisions or Rules, based on which the expenditure has been sanctioned/approved and whether they are even aware of the power under the Statute/Rules for appropriation of funds including current and accumulated surpluses.

9.                  We had specifically called for the Resolutions of the Board of Trustees to support the stand of the respondents that the Trustees had applied their mind to the necessity of each proposed construction, the deployment of funds, and that they had been complying with the requirements under various Rules. Nothing has been placed before us in this regard. There is thus some merit in the argument of the petitioner that the role of the Trustees has been minimal and cosmetic. Their participation is clearly ineffective, and the decision making is only by the authorities. (Para 61)

10.              However, it is only the Board of trustees that may consider such suggestions, take a decision in that regard and spearhead the provision of the same. While any person may be proactive and take an interest in temple administration and management, only the trustees may decisively take action in regard to the same. In light of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that Government Order dated 08.03.2024 and proceedings dated 11.10.2024 constitute a usurpation of the role of the temple management by the State. There is also another reason why we say this, and this is the scheme of the Act relating to deployment of funds.  (Para 64)

11.              There is utter lack of clarity in the manner by which the audit is performed, and by whom. We are constrained to say this in the light of the records produced now and the fact that substantial expenses have been incurred without following the statutory process and the requirements under the Rules. As far as the Local Fund Audit Department is concerned, we are unaware of what the constituents of the LFAD are, how many Chartered Accountants and accountants are employed, and what the systems are for management of the financials and accounts of the religious institutions in the State. (para 90)

12.              We call for the complete details in regard to the Local Fund Audit Department, and the Wing / Department concerned with the audit of the Religious Institutions, including but not restricted to the structure, number of employees and staff, and manner of functioning, forthwith, by way of a comprehensive status report to be filed within two weeks from today. (para 91)

13.              The impugned Government order dated 08.03.2024 and work order dated 11.10.2024 stipulate the details of substantial expenditure to be incurred towards construction activities. As a concomitant, it is necessary that these expenditures should have been figured in the budgets of the relevant years that were presented before the Commissioner. Those budgets have been placed before us, and we do not find any budgeting for these expenditures therein. (Para 92)

14.              There is a detailed procedure contemplated under Section 86 for the approval of the budget and provision is made for the exchange of views, clarifications, modifications to, and exclusion of expenses budgeted, prior to grant of approval. In this case, this procedure has not been followed. The budgeting is incomplete and incorrect and substantial funds have been spent even without approval. There is nothing in the budgets to even indicate that the authorities are aware of the Rules in this regard. The approach is casual and careless.         (Para 93)

15.              It is a matter of great concern that the accumulated surpluses have been reduced from a sum of Rs.96,60,59,638.63 as on years ending 31.3.2021 and 31.03.2022, and Rs.107,60,75,395 as on year ending 31.03.2023, to a sum of Rs.62,37,52,723.97 in year ending 31.03.2024. This reduction represents expenditure incurred without budgeting for the same and is without the sanction or authority of law. It is a crime against the deity and a clear illustration of the fence eating the crops. (Para 101)

16.              While it is the Board of Trustees that must have a constant presence to manage the temple, in this case, it is the Executive Officer, periodically, along with a Fit Person. This is contrary to the 2014 judgment in Dr.Subramanian Swamy’s case where the Supreme Court has categorically defined the role of an Executive Officer, stating that an Executive Officer is to be brought in only when there is an impasse created in the management of the temple or some other circumstance necessitating quick intervention by the authorities. (Para 102)

17.              Such intervention is justified solely on the basis of the exigencies, and the appointment is hence temporary, to tide over those circumstances. Normalcy is to be restored at the earliest. (Para 103)

18.              The Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 (in short, ‘EO Rules’) prescribe a maximum term of appointment of an Executive Officer at a time, as five years

19.              The continued presence of the Executive Officer from 1968 onwards till date, is thus not justified post 2015, as the authority ought

to have taken stock of the position and brought the temple administration in line with the EO Rules. This has not been done.

20.              We suggest that the Board members may retire in rotation, so that at any given point in time, at least one third of the members will continue from the old Board in order to provide continuity of thought and operation.

21.              Undoubtedly there is need for professional management of the temple assets under the guidance and advice of the Trustees appointed from time to time. The Kallazhagar temple owns, as do many temples in Tamil Nadu, a vast repository of assets including immovable property. The Trustees are undoubtedly expected to be persons of high standard and stature with a keen and deep interest in Hindu religion and spirituality. They are to be assisted by a team of efficient managers, also with knowledge of, and interest in the Hindu religion, to manage the temple assets and records on a day-to-day basis, who report to the Board of Trustees. (Paras 111 & 112)

22.              In conclusion, we direct:

(i)                Immediate measures be taken for constitution of new Board of Trustees in line with the observations/directions supra.

(ii)               (ii) Necessary amendments in line with the observations supra be made to bring the management of Kallazhagar temple in line with the Act and Rules, forthwith.