The Madras High Court’s 30 October 2026 order appointing a Board of Management for the Chidambaram Sabanayagar Temple has raised a crucial question: Can the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department use its statutory Administration Fund to pay the members of the newly appointed Board?
A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and E. Manoharan held that the Podhu Dikshidars had maladministered the temple and appointed a Board of Management comprising two retired High Court judges and a retired IAS officer, along with ex-officio representatives of the Podhu Dikshidar association and the HR&CE Department.
The Court directed that the chairman, co-chairman and member of the Board be paid a monthly remuneration of ₹2 lakh each. It also ordered that they be provided cars, drivers and personal security officers in the rank of Inspector of Police. The order further stated that the expenses should be met from the funds of the HR&CE Department, with ₹10 lakh placed at the Board’s disposal for contingency expenditure.
However, the direction to meet these expenses from HR&CE funds has come under scrutiny in light of an earlier Madras High Court judgment that specifically restricts the purposes for which the statutory Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Fund can be used.
The issue had already come up before the Madras High Court in a case filed by temple activist T.R. Ramesh, W.P.(MD) No. 34090 of 2025, concerning the utilisation of temple funds for land acquisition around the Palani Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple.
The 26 November 2025 Order: Court Identified the Legal Question
On 26 November 2025, a Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan specifically identified the question of what constituted a legitimate purpose for deploying collections made under Section 92 and the fund established under Section 96 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
The Bench noted that the Uttar Pradesh HR&CE law did not contain provisions equivalent to Sections 92 and 96 of the Tamil Nadu Act. It therefore observed that the permissible purposes for which these collections and funds could be utilised would arise for consideration in the case.
The matter was subsequently taken up by a different Division Bench.
The 23 June 2026 Judgment: Section 96 Fund Cannot Be Used for Any Other Purpose
On 23 June 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and R. Poornima delivered its judgment in the same case.
The Bench examined Section 96 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which establishes the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Fund and vests it in the HR&CE Commissioner.
The provision specifies that the Commissioner must use the fund to repay the government for sums paid under Section 92(4) and loans received from the government.
The Court was categorical about the limits on the Commissioner’s powers. In paragraph 5, it held, “The statutory provision is clear and categorical. While the temple administration fund would vest in the Commissioner, the Commissioner does not have any discretion to spend the amount as he likes. The money withdrawn by him from and out of the fund can only be for the purpose of repaying the government sums paid by the government under Sub-Section 4 of Section 92 of the Act and the loans received from the government. Except for these two purposes, the said fund cannot be utilized for any other purpose.”
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Can the HR&CE Department Use This Fund to Pay the Chidambaram Board?
This is the legal question arising from the October 30 order.
How much time more before the @tnhrcedept realizes that it cannot pay Rs. 2 lakhs per month to the 3 Committee members appointed under this judgment from the “HRCE Fund” ?
1. There is nothing called HRCE Fund
2. The @tnhrcedept knows that they cannot touch the “HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION FUND” for this purpose –
They know it because I got a judgment to that effect from an HON’BLE BENCH of Madras High Court on 23.06.2026!Pazhani Sri Dhandayuthapani Swamy is Vetrivel Muruhan !
— trramesh (@trramesh) October 30, 2026
The June 23 judgment does not prohibit the HR&CE Department from meeting expenses from every possible source under its control. It specifically rules that the statutory Administration Fund under Section 96 cannot be used for purposes other than those expressly permitted by the Act.
Therefore, the reference in the Chidambaram order to meeting the expenses from HR&CE Department funds must be examined against this statutory restriction. The department cannot simply treat the Section 96 Administration Fund as a general-purpose account from which any expenditure can be met.
The objection is also that there is no separate statutory fund called simply the “HR&CE Fund” that can be freely drawn upon for this purpose. The Act establishes a specifically named Administration Fund and prescribes the purposes for which it can be used.
The June 23 judgment had already made the legal position clear. The question now is whether the HR&CE Department can identify a legally permissible source for the ₹6 lakh monthly remuneration and other expenses ordered for the Chidambaram Board, without violating the statutory restrictions governing the Administration Fund.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
