Chennai: The Tamil Nadu state government has offered a sovereign guarantee before the Madras High Court regarding temple funds invested in the Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation (TNPFIDC). This development comes in response to a petition challenging the government's decision to permit investment of surplus temple funds in state-run companies.
Court Proceedings and Government Assurance
A vacation bench comprising Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan had earlier asked whether the government would extend a sovereign guarantee to temple funds, similar to its backing of the debt-ridden Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL). The state-owned non-banking financial institution, TNPFIDC, has lent most of its funds to the power utility.
On Friday, the government filed an affidavit assuring the court that temple funds invested in TNPFIDC would be fully protected. The affidavit stated that interest on these investments is paid regularly and that there is no need for concern regarding the safety of the investments.
Background of the Petition
In February this year, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department issued a Government Order (GO) amending investment rules under the HR&CE Act. This amendment permitted surplus temple funds to be invested in state government-run companies. Seeking to quash this GO and restrain further investment of temple funds in non-banking financial institutions, a petition was filed by T R Ramesh, president of the Indic Collective Trust and the Temple Worshippers Society.
The petition contended that while the HR&CE Act was enacted to safeguard temple properties and funds, the GO had been issued in violation of the statute. The petitioner argued that ₹2,700 crore of temple funds had been illegally invested in government companies and sought directions to the state government to compensate temples for alleged losses caused.
Court's Direction
Recording the government's assurance, the judges directed the state government to file its detailed response and adjourned the hearing by three weeks. The court has not yet issued a final order on the petition.
