"State control of Hindu temples is both a heritage-protection necessity and a secularism paradox." Critically analyse.

Under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 [4], the State supervises thousands of temples. The Supreme Court revisited this model in November 2026 when it stayed a Madras High Court order that had placed Chidambaram's Natarajar temple under a Board of Management [1]. The statement is broadly valid. But what is necessary is accountability, not State control.

Why State oversight appears necessary for heritage

• Accountability gap: Tamil Nadu alleges the Podhu Dikshidars shared no full accounts for 12 years after the 2014 handover [1].
• Damage to the structure: The HC found unauthorised constructions harming the ancient temple. It gave the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission a role in removing them [1].
• Protecting property: The deity is a juristic person. Courts invoke parens patriae and use the district administration to recover encroached lands [1].
• Constitutional basis: Art 25(2)(a) lets the State regulate secular activities linked to religion. Art 26(d) allows property to be managed only "in accordance with law".

Why it is a secularism paradox

• Selective reach: The SC asked whether parens patriae applies only to public temples. If it does, faiths may be treated unequally under Art 14 [1].
• Denominational autonomy: In Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014), the SC set aside the State's takeover and upheld the Dikshitars' rights as a religious denomination [3].
• State as a poor guardian: The CAG found temple and Wakf lands among encroached government lands, and eviction drives had little effect [2]. State control does not guarantee protection.
• Principled distance blurred: Officials appointed under the HR&CE Act [4] run places of worship. This sits uneasily with a secular State.

Assessment

• The paradox is real but can be resolved. Indian secularism allows the State to regulate the secular side (finance, land, conservation) while staying out of religious matters (rituals).
• What is necessary is oversight, not ownership. Repeated litigation since 2009 shows that settling who controls a temple without settling how it accounts for funds only brings disputes back to court.

The real issue, then, is not whether the State controls temples but whether their money and heritage are checked. The way forward is to tie denominational autonomy to audited annual accounts, publish temple land records, require Heritage Commission approval for any construction, and frame faith-neutral transparency rules for all religious endowments. This would respect Art 26's "in accordance with law", uphold equality under Art 14, and advance SDG 11.4 on safeguarding cultural heritage.