The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought directions regarding wages, employee status, and welfare benefits for priests and temple staff working in state-controlled temples across India, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
Court's Response to the Plea
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to intervene in the matter after hearing arguments from advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who filed the plea. The court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the PIL, leaving him free to approach the appropriate authorities instead.
"Do not get into the matter of temple priests. Do you know how much temple priests earn? We are not entertaining this," the court remarked.
What the PIL Demanded
The petition sought directions to the central and state governments to constitute a judicial commission or an expert committee to review the wages, service conditions, and welfare benefits of priests, sevadars, and temple staff employed in temples administered by state governments.
The plea further asked the court to declare temple priests and staff as "employees" under the Code on Wages, 2019, which would make them eligible for statutory minimum wages and labour protections. The petitioner argued that several state governments exercise administrative and financial control over Hindu temples through endowment departments and temple boards, creating an employer-employee relationship between temple authorities and the priests.
Allegations of Systemic Exploitation
The petition claimed that many temple priests and workers receive meagre salaries or survive entirely on offerings and honorariums rather than fixed wages. "Priests and temple staff are not getting even the minimum wage prescribed by the state for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. This is a systemic exploitation," the petition said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
The plea described the situation as systemic exploitation, arguing that temple workers in many states remain economically vulnerable despite temples being under government administration.
Constitutional Arguments Raised
The petition raised constitutional arguments, claiming that denial of fair wages and social security violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and the right to life with dignity.
One of the central arguments raised by Upadhyay was that Hindu temples in several states are subject to government oversight, unlike mosques and churches. The plea contended that once the state assumes administrative and financial control over temple institutions, it must also ensure labour welfare protections for those working there.
Supreme Court's Disinclination and Withdrawal
The Supreme Court was not inclined to examine the issue through a PIL. After the bench expressed its unwillingness to entertain the matter, Upadhyay requested permission to withdraw the plea and pursue the matter before relevant authorities instead. "Allow me to withdraw it and approach the authorities," Upadhyay submitted before the court, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
