"Receiver Raj": How Court-Appointed Officials Are Mismanaging Hindu Temples

Recently, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about several temples in Uttar Pradesh coming under the receivership of the likes of advocates, teachers, and journalists.

Receivership is a legal arrangement where a court appoints a third party to take control of and manage the assets or affairs of an individual or entity, usually when they are unable to do so themselves due to legal disputes, financial difficulties, or other circumstances.

Taking note of the ‘vested interest’ of such parties seeking to prolong litigation, the apex court directed the Mathura district judge to submit a report detailing the following information:

1. The list of temples in Mathura district that have litigations pending and for which receivers have been appointed by courts

2. Since when such litigations are pending and the status of proceedings

3. The names and status of the persons, particularly of the advocates, appointed by the courts as receivers

4. The remuneration, if any, being paid to the receivers appointed in such proceedings

For years, numerous temples in Mathura have run under a receivership system. This arrangement was introduced to ensure that temple activities, including daily rituals and festivals, remained uninterrupted despite disputes.

In a report submitted by the district judge to the Allahabad High Court, it was noted that civil litigations were pending with respect to temples situated in Vrindavan, Govardhan, Baldeo, Gokul, Barsana, and Maath, among others.

Eight temples — Radha Vallabh Mandir, Vrindavan; Dauji Maharaj Mandir, Baldeo; Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir, Gokul; Mukharbind, Govardhan; Danghati, Govardhan; Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Vrindavan; and Mandir Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana — were all under receivership, with advocates being the receivers in most cases.

Such an arrangement overlooks the fact that it is almost always in the interest of the receiver to aid the prolonging of the litigation.

The longer the dispute runs and the longer the affairs of the temple remain under contention, the longer is the duration for which the receiver holds on to their post, and thereby longer is the term over which they enjoy the associated perks.

As the Allahabad High Court itself has remarked:

"The interest of the Receiver lies in keeping the litigation pending. No effort is made to conclude the civil proceedings, as the entire control of temple administration vest in the hands of the Receiver. Most of the litigation is in respect of management of temples and appointment of Receivers."

Receiverships have also become a status symbol. Cars bear sticker tags declaring to the world that their owners are receivers. In this way, the receivers command prime parking spaces within temple complexes. 

In most cases, the parties themselves ask the courts to intervene and appoint receivers. For instance, in 2021, the Delhi High Court appointed receivers to assess the offerings and donations made to South Delhi’s famous Kalkaji Temple during the Hindu festival of Navratri and ordered that the petitioner, one of the traditional priests of the temple, is given one-sixth ‘share’ of the daily collections.

The order was passed while hearing a petition by Bishan Swaroop, who claimed to be a legal heir and a ‘baridaar’ (worshipper or priest) of the temple, with the right to conduct ‘puja sewa’ (prayer rituals) and receive a portion of the offerings made during a designated period (‘Shashmahi bari’), which comes every 12 years during the two Navratri periods.

The court noted that, prima facie, a monopoly had been created by another family member, Mahendra Pandey, who, according to the plea, was not allowing Swaroop to perform puja sewa and claim a share in the offerings and donations.

"Various branches of families, and the various baridaars who are hundreds in number, keep filing applications/ proceedings before the trial courts, which has resulted in enormous confusion and complete mismanagement at the Kalkaji Mandir. The baris are even auctioned and there are purchasers who have bid for exercising the baris,” the court noted in its order.

While the receivership system was conceived to serve as a temporary arrangement to help the temples under litigation function, there have been unfortunate instances where the appointed receivers have abused the resources that are meant to be managed.

In 2023, the acting receiver of Barsana’s Ladliji was booked for theft in a case related to the breaking of the temple's donation box.

The issues with receiverships are not isolated to Uttar Pradesh alone. In 2023, the Karnataka High Court, in Prashanth K Shetty & Ors. v. Jayaksha K Suvarna & Ors., upheld an order removing a receiver appointed for a Hindu temple, highlighting the need for strong prima facie cases of mismanagement or harm before such an appointment can be made. 

The petition field had sought the appointment of a senior advocate from the Udupi Bar as a receiver to oversee the management of the temples of the gods Shree Maisandaya, Shree Jarandaya Bunta, Shree Dumavathi and Parivara Daivas at Paduhithlu, Udupi.

Order XL Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code empowers the court to appoint the receiver for a property. The court can appoint a receiver, even if there is no application from the party concerned, if it believes it is just and convenient to do so.

The Karnataka High Court echoed this sentiment when it said:

"The appointment of Receiver would result in serious consequences. When the parties make out strong prima facie case showing damage, misuse or mismanagement of the property in question, then only the Court could exercise its power to appoint Receiver."

The key word here is 'mismanagement'. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) acts that govern temple administration across states in the country rarely have the term defined.

There is no exhaustive list of actions that qualify as mismanagement to attract consequential takeovers by the state or courts. Nor is there a definite time period.

This stands in contrast to the treatment in the appointment of a receiver when hearing appeals for the removal of a mutawalli (the manager or superintendent of the waqf) of a wakf property.

The Wakf Act and subsequent judicial pronouncements concerning provisions of the Act have well established the qualifications required for a person to become a mutawalli.

The waqf founder's intentions for creating the waqf dictate the succession of the mutawalli office, and no other documentation contradicts this intention. Additionally, in case a waqf is created without appointing a mutawalli, the executor of the founder of the wakf or the mutawalli on his deathbed may appoint a new mutawalli.

A court of justice may also appoint a mutawalli, but is governed by the following conditions:

1) If possible, the court should not ignore the settler's instructions.

2) A family member of the settler should have priority over a complete stranger.

3) The court holds discretion in cases where there is a conflict between a direct descendant and a non-descendant of the founder.

In certain circumstances, the congregation may also appoint a mutawalli.

Additionally, when a mutawalli appeals to a tribunal against his removal (one constituted under the Wakf Act and granted finality of decisions with no scope for appeal), the Wakf Board may ask the tribunal to appoint a receiver to manage the waqf property while the appeal is being decided. The receiver is to ensure that the mutawalli's and the waqf's religious and customary rights are protected.

The Wakf Act under Section 65 also provides that any direct takeover by the Wakf Board from the mutawalli can only be done after the proper documentation of reasons and will last for a maximum period of five years.

Establishment of similar criteria within the HRCE Acts for either takeover by the state or for the appointment of receivers by the courts would help maintain a check on the powers of those appointed and increase accountability.

The Allahabad High Court has said similarly:

“Now, time has come when all these temples should be freed from the clutches of practising advocates of Mathura Court and Courts should make every endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a Receiver who is connected with the management of a temple and has some religious leaning towards the deity. He should also be well versed with the Vedas and Shastras.

"Advocates and people from district administration should be kept away from the management and control of these ancient temples. Effort should be made for disposing of the suit, involving temple disputes at the earliest and matter should not be lingered for decades.”

Clearly, the judiciary has finally recognised the perils of involving practising advocates in the day-to-day affairs of temple management.

The Allahabad High Court has noted: 

"A practising lawyer cannot devote sufficient time for the administration and management of a temple, especially of Vrindavan and Govardhan, which needs skill in the temple management along with full devotion and dedication.

"Prolonging the litigation is only creating further disputes in temples and leading to indirect involvement of practising advocates and district administration in the temples, which is not in the interest of the people having faith in Hindu religion."

The current system of temple receiverships in India requires urgent reform. The potential for abuse of power by appointed receivers undermines the very purpose of these interventions.

Clearer guidelines, like they have in the Wakf Act, are necessary to ensure that temple resources are managed responsibly and that the spiritual and cultural needs of the devotees are paramount.