A relook at corruption in temples and abolition of the VIP ‘culture’
The late chief priest of Chilkur Balaji Temple, Dr M V Soundararajan (1936–2026), was not merely a priest but a scholar-reformer who transformed temple governance into a constitutional and spiritual movement. His legacy combines religious tradition, anti-commercialisation reform, and constitutional assertion of temple autonomy, especially invoking Articles 26 and 363 to defend the sovereignty of the deity and denominational rights. He fought against corruption in Endowments and other similar affairs of state.
Soundararajan’s reforms were radical yet rooted in dharmic equality, especially removal of hundi (1998), including no donation box and worship free of monetary influence. He removed the hundi as a legal shield because under many Endowments laws, temples generating large income were subject to government takeover and bureaucratic control. To deal with this, he adopted a strategy and encouraged voluntary support through literature like temple magazine. It has ensured transparency and non-commercial spiritual administration.
Against State control:
The State Endowments department repeatedly attempted a takeover right from the mid-1990s and a major takeover move around 2006. For that, Soundararajan launched a ‘Temple Protection Movement’ to defend autonomy. He argued that government management commercialises temples and distorts traditions. It became a constitutional litigation battle. He strongly pleaded for the abolition of VIP darshan, all devotees stand in the same queue, no paid sevas or privileges based on the principle that faith overrules financial hierarchy. It is the equality doctrine, which means: “Every devotee is equal before God.”
He believed monetisation leads to ritual corruption, political control, and loss of sanctity of temple worship. Thus, the Chilkur temple in Hyderabad became a counter-model to commercialised temple administration.
Constitutional philosophy-Articles 26 and 363:
Soundararajan asserted that the Chilkur temple was a hereditary denominational temple, while archakas and trustees were custodians of the deity’s will and government interference violated Article 26(b) and 26(d).
Under Article 26, the State cannot impose administrative takeover if the core religious character is affected. Thus, his fight became a test case for: “Can the State control temples that are denominational and self-governed?”
Sovereignty of the deity:
Though Article 363 formally relates to disputes arising from pre-Constitution covenants with rulers, Soundararajan philosophically invoked it to argue ‘theological-Constitutional Concept’, consisting of the principle that the Hindu temple deity is a juristic person and the deity the sovereign spiritual owner, and archakas act as constitutional trustees, not employees of the State. This concept resonates with the Supreme Court jurisprudence recognising deities as legal persons in temple property disputes.
Administrative resistance:
In the ten years up to 2005, his movement opposed endowments’ registration and control, advocated hereditary denominational status, and successfully mobilised devotees, intellectual opinion and temple community resistance.
His relentless advocacy contributed to broader constitutional debates regarding a) State control of Hindu temples, b) Limits of Endowment laws, c) Autonomy of religious denominations, and d) Equality vs commercialisation in worship.
VIP culture-Constitutional immorality:
Soundararajan’s abolition of VIP darshan was not only a spiritual reform but a constitutional assertion of equality before the divine. He transformed Chilkur into a living experiment that propagated “Constitutional secularism does not mean state control over religion; it means protecting denominational autonomy.”
His life symbolises a rare synthesis of Sanatana Dharma + Constitutional Law + Social Equality. He did not merely administer a temple; he constitutionalised devotion and democratised access to God.
The landmark Shirur Mutt case laid down the fundamental principle that the State cannot interfere in essential religious practices of a denomination. The case held that religious institutions have autonomy in rituals, religious management, and internal spiritual administration. This case became the constitutional foundation for priest-leaders like Soundararajan to oppose excessive State control. [Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, Citation: AIR 1954 SC 282:1954 SCR 1005]
Sabarimala case-Denomination vs equality:
In the Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala, this case created the deepest constitutional conflict on temple autonomy, wherein the majority view held that a) Ayyappa devotees are not a separate denomination, b) Exclusionary practice violates Article 25 rights of women, and c) Denominational freedom under Article 26 is subject to reform laws. [Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala, Citation: (2019) 11 SCC 1]
It reflected the philosophical position long articulated by Chilkur’s priest-tradition; courts should protect faith, not reinterpret it.
Padmanabhaswamy temple-Deity’s sovereignty:
In this case, the Supreme Court held:
. The Travancore royal family retained shebait (custodian) rights
. The deity is a juristic entity
. Traditional trusteeship of the temple cannot be arbitrarily displaced by State
This judgment effectively revived the doctrine that the deity is the sovereign owner; trustees are only earthly representatives.
. In the Padmanabhaswamy case arguments, historical covenants between Travancore rulers and the Deity were invoked to assert continuity of sacred trusteeship — independent of political sovereignty.
This theory suggests:
. Deity ownership is supra-political
. Temple governance is part of civilizational sovereignty
. State control should be minimal and regulatory, not proprietary
This idea influenced temple autonomy movements nationwide, including Chilkur temple activism. Thus, his activism was not merely devotional — it was a constitutional protest against bureaucratic secularisation of temples.
The court has repeatedly acknowledged tension between state regulatory power over secular aspects (finance, administration) and religious autonomy over spiritual practices. Article 25(2)(a) allows the regulation of secular aspects associated with religion.
But Article 26 protects core religious autonomy, and the unresolved question remains: where does “secular administration” end and “sacred autonomy” begin? This ambiguity fuels continuing litigation across India. However, of late high corruption and misuse of powers are coming to the fore, like the contaminated ghee scandal in TTD and overwhelming hundi earnings. Alas, even in middle and small temples, the Dharma Karthas
(The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
