The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the money offered by devotees was not meant for the construction of marriage halls as it upheld an order which said temple funds couldn't be treated as public or government funds.
The order of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court had quashed the government orders allowing the construction of marriage halls with funds belonging to five temples at different locations in Tamil Nadu.
In its August 19 order, the high court held the government's decision to construct marriage halls for rental purposes by giving them for wedding functions wasn't within the definition of "religious purposes".
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the pleas challenging the high court decision and said, "Devotees do not offer their money to the temple for the purpose of setting up these marriage halls. It may be for the improvement of the temple." The bench went on to ask, "If there is a marriage party going on in a temple premises and all kinds of vulgar songs are played, is that the purpose of a temple land?" The top court instead suggested that such money be utilised for charitable purposes such as education and for medical institutions.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and other lawyers were representing the petitioners.
The bench noted the issue was whether the decision taken by the government was right or wrong.
The top court, however, agreed to hear the challenge and posted it for November 19.
"We will hear this matter. We are not granting any stay order to the petitioners," the bench said.
The high court decision came on a plea challenging the government orders allowing the construction of marriage halls with temple funds.
The government order was stated to have revealed the statement of the Minister for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, who, during the budget speech in the assembly, announced the construction of marriage halls in 27 temples by spending temple funds to the tune of Rs 80 crore.
The petitioner in the high court contended that the government had no jurisdiction to utilise temple funds or surplus funds for the construction of marriage halls under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and its rules.
The petitioner further told the high court that temple funds weren't meant for commercial purposes and these government orders were in violation of Sections 35, 36, and 66 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
The state's counsel told the high court that the performance of Hindu marriages was a religious activity, and in order to assist Hindus to perform the marriages with less expenditure, the government decided to construct the marriage halls.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
