"The autonomy of religious denominations under Article 26 must be balanced against the State's duty to secure transparent administration of religious endowments." Discuss with reference to recent judicial developments.

Article 26 lets every religious denomination manage its religious affairs and administer property, but only "in accordance with law". Article 25(2)(a) lets the State regulate the secular side of religion. On 4 November 2026 the Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court's takeover of the Chidambaram Natarajar temple [1]. The stay shows that the line between the two is still not settled.

Case for denominational autonomy

• Judicial recognition: In 2014, the Supreme Court (Chauhan and Bobde, JJ.) set aside the 2009 High Court order that had vested the temple in the State. It restored the Podhu Dikshitars, holding that their denominational status was already settled and that superseding management for mismanagement cannot be permanent [2].
• State's own record: The CAG found temple and Wakf lands among the serious encroachments on government land in Tamil Nadu, and eviction efforts made little headway [3]. State control is therefore no guarantee of good stewardship.

Case for transparency and oversight

• Accountability gap: On 30 October 2026 the High Court found maladministration. The State alleges that no full accounts have been shared for 12 years [1].
• Deity as juristic person: The State invoked the parens patriae (guardian) jurisdiction, under which courts protect the deity's property [1].
• Heritage and property: The High Court found unauthorised constructions damaging the ancient structure. It tied their removal to the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission and asked the district administration to recover encroached land [1].

Recent judicial signals

• Equal treatment: The Supreme Court asked whether parens patriae should apply only to public temples, which raises Article 14 concerns about treating faiths differently [1].
• Waqf parallel: In September 2025 the Supreme Court refused to stay the whole Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. It did stay provisions such as the five-year-practice condition and the Collector's power over property disputes [4]. Courts accept regulation but check overreach.

Way forward

• Keep autonomy, but require annual audited accounts to be filed with a named auditor.
• Publish digitised land records of every endowment.
• Require Heritage Commission clearance for any new construction.
• Apply oversight rules that are the same for all faiths.

The control of Chidambaram has shifted three times: to the State in 2009, back to the priests in 2014, and to a Board in 2026. Courts can decide who manages a temple, but not how its books are kept. The lasting balance is "autonomy with accountability": denominations keep control of rituals, while their secular finances stay auditable under rules that apply equally to every faith. That honours both Article 26's "in accordance with law" and the equality of Article 14.