Examine the doctrine of *parens patriae* in Indian jurisprudence on religious institutions. Does its selective application raise concerns of equal treatment among faiths?

Parens patriae means "parent of the nation". Under it, a court acts as guardian of those who cannot protect themselves. In Indian law the presiding deity is a juristic person, a legal person that can own property, so High Courts use the doctrine to protect temple property [1]. In November 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the Madras HC order on the Chidambaram Natarajar temple. It asked whether this guardianship applies only to Hindu public temples [1].

Doctrine in Indian jurisprudence

• Basis: the deity is a legal person that owns property but cannot act for itself. Courts step in when its managers fail it [1].
• Constitutional space: Art 26(d) lets religious denominations administer property only "in accordance with law". Art 25(2)(a) lets the State regulate secular activity linked to religion [2].
• Application at Chidambaram: on 30 Oct 2026 the Madras HC found that the Podhu Dikshidars had mismanaged the temple since the 2014 SC orders. It set up a Board of Management to remove unauthorised constructions with the TN Heritage Commission and to recover encroached land [1].
• Limits: the SC stayed the order and issued notice to the State. A court's guardianship cannot simply override a denomination's management rights [1].

Does selective application raise equal-treatment concerns?

Yes, because:

• The same logic is applied unevenly: the reasoning rests on the deity being a legal person, not on Hinduism. Yet it is applied mainly to Hindu temples. This raises Art 14/25 parity questions, which the SC itself flagged [1][2].
• Hindu temples face two layers of control: they face both the HR&CE Act, 1959 and court guardianship. Waqf and Sikh gurdwara bodies are run under their own statutes, with community representation.
• Autonomy is eroded: repeated intervention weakens the denominational rights recognised since Shirur Mutt (1954).

But intervention is partly justified:

• Real accountability gap: the State says full accounts were not shared for 12 years [1].
• The State is not a reliable guardian either: CAG found that eviction drives in Tamil Nadu recovered under a tenth of encroached government land [3]. So the real issue is who audits, not who controls.
• Extending the doctrine to every faith could raise fears among minorities that their Art 26 rights will be interfered with.

The doctrine protects the deity's property, but using it for one faith sits uneasily with Art 14 and with secularism understood as equal respect for all religions. The SC should set a faith-neutral test: court guardianship only after proven mismanagement, limited in time, along with mandatory audited accounts and heritage approvals for all religious endowments. Such parity would protect both Art 26 autonomy and constitutional secularism.