State control over Hindu temples in India raises concerns about the labour rights of priests and temple staff. Critically examine the constitutional and statutory dimensions of this issue in light of recent judicial developments.

Q. State control over Hindu temples in India raises concerns about the labour rights of priests and temple staff. Critically examine the constitutional and statutory dimensions of this issue in light of recent judicial developments. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Religious endowments are a State subject under Entry 28, List II of the Seventh Schedule [1], and States such as Tamil Nadu administer nearly 44,000 temples through the HR&CE Act, 1959 [2]. When the State controls temple revenue and appointments, the question arises whether priests and sevadars become "employees" entitled to wage protection — a tension recently tested before the Supreme Court.

Constitutional basis for the claim - Article 21 includes the right to livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985); sub-subsistence honoraria for temple staff arguably offend it [1][3]. - Article 25(2)(a) expressly permits the State to regulate secular activity associated with religion, upheld in Shirur Mutt (1954) — if the State takes secular management, welfare duties follow [1][3]. - Article 14: differential treatment of temple staff versus other State-supported religious functionaries invites an equality challenge [1].

Statutory dimension - The Code on Wages, 2019, consolidating four wage laws, extends minimum wage cover to all establishments; Section 2(k)'s "employee" definition turns on hire or reward, and dakshina/honorarium sits uneasily within it [4][5]. - State wage rules notified under the Code do not expressly bring temples within scope, leaving an implementation gap [5].

The critical counterview - Article 26 protects a denomination's right to manage religious affairs; treating archakas as wage-employees risks converting a sacerdotal role into contractual service. - Judicially, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the 2026 PIL seeking a commission on temple-staff wages, holding an Article 32 writ unsuitable and directing recourse to the appropriate forum [6] — a reminder that wage grievances are fact-specific and belong before labour and endowment tribunals, not blanket writ relief.

The dispute is less about entitlement than about forum and classification. The balanced way forward lies in State endowment departments notifying transparent wage scales under the Code on Wages framework, with a central advisory committee harmonising practice — securing dignity of labour under Article 21 without diluting the religious autonomy Articles 25–26 guarantee.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India (as on May 2022), India Code — Articles 14, 21, 25(2)(a), 26; Entry 28, List II 2. Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, India Code — statutory basis of State temple administration 3. Supreme Court of India — Judgments portal — Olga Tellis (1985) livelihood doctrine; Shirur Mutt (1954) religious-secular distinction 4. The Code on Wages, 2019 (Act No. 29 of 2019), India Code — Section 2(k) "employee"; consolidation of four wage laws 5. The Code on Wages, 2019 — Bill Track, PRS Legislative Research — scope of establishments and State rule-making 6. Supreme Court of India (official site) — 2026 order declining the temple-staff wages PIL as not maintainable under Article 32