PIL plea in SC seeks review of wages of priests, temple staff

1. At a Glance

• A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking constitution of a judicial commission / expert committee to review wages and benefits of priests, sevadars, and temple staff in state-controlled temples.
• The petition argues that when the State assumes administrative and financial control of a temple, an employer-employee relationship is automatically created, making denial of dignified wages a violation of Article 21 (right to livelihood).
• Seeks a declaration that temple priests/staff qualify as 'employee' under Section 2(k) of the Code on Wages, 2019.
• Relevant to GS-II (polity/governance, minority/religious rights) and GS-IV (ethics of state control over religious institutions). [1][4]

2. Why in the News

• May 11, 2026: PIL filed in the Supreme Court (reported in The Hindu, page 6, International Print Edition) seeking central and state government directions on wages of temple staff in state-controlled temples. [1]
• SC response: The Supreme Court refused to entertain the PIL, observing it was not maintainable in its present form under Article 32; directed aggrieved persons to approach the appropriate forum (bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta). [3]
• The petition was filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a serial PIL filer on religious/constitutional matters. [2]

3. Background & Evolution

• Historical context: Several Indian states — most notably Tamil Nadu (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959), Andhra Pradesh/Telangana (AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987), and Karnataka — have enacted legislation placing Hindu temples under government-controlled boards/departments.
• Under these Acts, the Devaswom/HR&CE Departments manage temple revenues, appoint staff, and regulate administration, but priest compensation has historically remained low and unregulated by labour law.
• The Code on Wages, 2019 (one of four Labour Codes amalgamating 29 central labour laws) consolidated: Minimum Wages Act 1948, Payment of Wages Act 1936, Payment of Bonus Act 1965, Equal Remuneration Act 1976. It contains a definition of 'employee' under Section 2(k) that the petitioner seeks to extend to temple priests. [5]
• Similar concerns about underpaid temple priests have been raised by various state governments and religious bodies over the past decade, leading to sporadic ad hoc revisions by state HR&CE departments.

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Article 21 jurisprudence: SC has held (Olga Tellis, 1985; Maneka Gandhi, 1978) that 'life' includes the right to livelihood — petitioner invokes this to argue below-subsistence wages for priests are unconstitutional.
• Article 25–28 (freedom of religion) creates a tension: state intervention in temple management is upheld (Article 25(2)(a) allows state to regulate secular activities associated with religion), but excessive control that strips priests of labour rights can be challenged.
• Article 32 maintainability: SC's refusal signals that individual/group grievances on wages should be addressed through appropriate labour forums (e.g., labour courts, HR&CE tribunals) rather than direct SC writ jurisdiction. [3]
• The definition of 'employee' under Section 2(k), Code on Wages 2019, currently covers persons employed for "hire or reward"; whether priests receiving dakshina/honorarium qualify remains unresolved. [5]

Social

• Thousands of priests in state-controlled temples — particularly in Tamil Nadu (~36,000+ temples under HR&CE), AP/Telangana, and Karnataka — receive wages often below the statutory minimum wage.
• Temple priests belong predominantly to specific communities (Agamic tradition); financial vulnerability leads to exodus from the profession, threatening intangible cultural heritage.
• Gender dimension: The PIL implicitly covers female priests ('archakas') appointed in some states after SC rulings, who face compounded wage discrimination.

Ethical / Governance

• The state assumes revenue control of temple hundi collections and endowment income, yet does not extend commensurate labour protections to temple employees — creating a structural contradiction.
• State governments are accused of treating temples as revenue sources without proportionate reinvestment in priest welfare.
• Contrast with state-paid Waqf Board imams and church endowment staff who may receive different treatment — raises equality of treatment concerns under Article 14.

Administrative

• Temple administration falls under state jurisdiction (Entry 28, List II — Seventh Schedule: "Charities and charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments and religious institutions").
• HR&CE Departments operate as state bodies; any wage revision requires state government notification.
• The Central government's Code on Wages applies to establishments across India, but temples were not explicitly included in its regulatory scope, creating a federal-implementation gap.

Historical

• Pre-independence, many temples were under private trust management (mathadipathis/dharmakarthas); post-independence state takeover began in Madras (Tamil Nadu) in the 1950s.
• SC upheld state control in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954), distinguishing between religious practice (protected) and secular management (regulable).

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• May 2026: PIL filed in SC by Adv. Ashwini Upadhyay; SC declines to entertain; directs petitioners to appropriate forum. [1][3]
• 2025–26: Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department under periodic scrutiny for temple revenue diversion; state assembly questions raised about priest salary arrears.
• Code on Wages, 2019: As of November 2025, the Act continues to be updated (IndiaCode version "as on 21st November, 2025"); state-level rules (e.g., Tamil Nadu Code on Wages Rules, 2022) have been notified but do not explicitly address temple priests. [5][6]
• Ongoing litigation in various High Courts (Madras, Andhra Pradesh) on regularisation of temple employees and minimum wage applicability.

7. Prelims Hooks

1. The Code on Wages, 2019 received Presidential assent on 8 August 2019 (Act No. 29 of 2019). [5]
2. The Code consolidates four earlier labour laws: Minimum Wages Act (1948), Payment of Wages Act (1936), Payment of Bonus Act (1965), Equal Remuneration Act (1976).
3. Section 2(k) of the Code on Wages, 2019 defines 'employee' — the definition is at the heart of the temple priests' PIL.
4. The PIL was filed as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court).
5. The SC bench that declined the PIL comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
6. The right to livelihood as part of Article 21 was established in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985).
7. Temple/religious institution management falls under Entry 28, List II (State List), Seventh Schedule — a state subject.
8. SC upheld state regulation of secular aspects of temple management in Commissioner, HRE Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954).
9. Article 25(2)(a) permits the State to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or secular activity associated with religious practice.
10. The petitioner (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay) sought constitution of a judicial commission or expert committee — not direct wage fixation by SC.
11. The implementing ministry for the Code on Wages, 2019 is the Ministry of Labour and Employment.
12. Tamil Nadu's principal temple-regulation law is the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
13. The SC's refusal was on grounds of maintainability — Article 32 writ was not the appropriate remedy; aggrieved parties were directed to appropriate forums.

8. Mains Relevance

GS Papers: Primarily GS-II; secondary relevance to GS-IV

Plausible Mains Question Stems:

1. "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." (GS-II, 250 words)

2. "The principle of 'employer-employee relationship' arising from state assumption of temple control is argued to trigger obligations under the Code on Wages, 2019. Analyse the legal and governance implications." (GS-II, 150 words)

3. "India's approach to regulating religious institutions reflects inherent tensions between Article 25–28 freedoms and the state's socio-economic obligations under Article 21. Discuss." (GS-II/GS-IV, 250 words)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

1. Confusing Article 26 with Article 25: Article 25 is individual freedom of conscience; Article 26 gives religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion — state-controlled temples have this right curtailed, which is the source of the tension.

2. Misidentifying the implementing ministry: Code on Wages falls under Ministry of Labour and Employment, not Ministry of Home Affairs or Ministry of Culture (a common mix-up in temple/religion questions).

3. Assuming SC entertained the PIL: The SC declined to hear the case on maintainability grounds — aspirants may recall the filing but miss the outcome.

4. Treating all temples as state-controlled: Only temples brought under HR&CE/Devaswom/Endowments Acts are state-managed; private trusts and mutts generally retain autonomous management.

5. Confusing Entry 28, List II with Entry 44, List III: Entry 28 (State List) covers charities and religious endowments; Entry 44 (Concurrent List) covers stamp duties — do not conflate jurisdictions.