Madurai Bench Holds Decades-Old Interim Order Cannot Keep Parthasarathy Temple Under Executive Officer-Cum-Fit Person

The Madurai Bench rules that a 1982 interim order has long ceased to operate, bars the Executive Officer of Sri Parthasarathy Swamy Temple from holding the Fit Person role, and limits the officer's powers strictly to property administration.

A Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, has held that a 1982 interim order of the Madras High Court — which directed the Executive Officer of Sri Parthasarathy Swamy Temple, Triplicane, Chennai to also act as Fit Person — ceased to have legal effect once the underlying appeal was disposed of in 1991. The bench further ruled that combining the office of Executive Officer and Fit Person in a single individual runs against the statutory scheme under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and that an Executive Officer appointed under Section 45 of that Act has no authority to interfere in any religious activity, customary practice, or tradition of a temple. The writ petition, filed in public interest by activist T.R. Ramesh, was disposed of with these categorical findings on 29 May 2026.

The Dispute Before the Madurai Bench

T.R. Ramesh, described in the order as a well-known activist who has consistently campaigned for proper temple administration in Tamil Nadu, filed W.P. No. 20764 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. His writ prayer sought a mandamus forbearing the State and the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) from appointing or continuing an Executive Officer, or any Government official or subordinate of the Commissioner, as the Fit Person of any temple or religious institution under the department's administration, with a particular focus on Sri Parthasarathy Swamy Temple, Triplicane, Chennai.

The petitioner was represented by Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan for M/s. G.R. Associates. The State and the Commissioner (Respondents 1 and 2) were represented by Mr. P.V. Balasubramaniam, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Government Counsel. The third respondent, the Fit Person/Executive Officer of the temple, was represented by Mr. A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsel, for M/s. A.S. Kailasam & Associates.

The core grievance was that for several decades, the administration of Sri Parthasarathy Swamy Temple has been vested in an Executive Officer appointed by the HR&CE Department, and that the same officer has been doubling as the Fit Person of the temple — a state of affairs the petitioner argued should not be allowed to continue.

History of the Temple's Administration

Sri Parthasarathy Swamy Temple is an ancient Vaishnavite temple in Chennai. A scheme for its administration was framed in C.S. No. 527 of 1924, which provided for three elected trustees — one Brahmin, one Arya Vaishya (Komati), and one from neither community — each serving a five-year term from a specified electoral college. Modifications were later made in O.A. No. 55 of 1961 by the Deputy Commissioner for HR&CE (Administration), Chennai.

Disputes over temple administration led to C.S. No. 240 of 1976 being instituted on the original side of the Madras High Court. In that proceeding, an interim injunction was granted restraining the HR&CE Department from appointing any trustee, and the existing Executive Officer was directed to continue in office and also act as Fit Person. This direction was issued by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on 11 May 1982 in C.M.P. Nos. 1343 and 6366 of 1982 in O.S.A. No. 15 of 1982. The Additional Advocate General, when the present writ petition was taken up, submitted that the Executive Officer's continuance and the dual role arrangement were traceable to this 1982 order and could not be faulted. He offered an undertaking that trustees would be appointed for the temple within six months and requested the court to record the undertaking and close the petition.

Three Legal Questions Framed

The bench declined to close the matter on the strength of the undertaking alone. Having gone through the affidavit, the typed set of papers, and precedents cited at the Bar, the bench identified three issues for consideration:

First, whether Sri Parthasarathy Swamy Temple can continue to be run by an Executive Officer-cum-Fit Person. Second, whether an Executive Officer can lawfully double as Fit Person. Third, what are the limits of the power of an Executive Officer appointed under Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

The 1982 Order Had No Continuing Force

On the first issue, the bench observed that the Additional Advocate General was factually correct that the arrangement originated from the 1982 Division Bench order. However, the bench held that the critical question was whether that order could still hold good. The bench noted that what had been passed in 1982 was only an interim order in an appeal, and that O.S.A. No. 15 of 1982 itself appears to have been disposed of in 1991.

The bench applied settled principle: an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC cannot have an independent existence beyond the appeal in which it was made. It survives only during the pendency of that appeal. Once the appeal is disposed of — whether on merits or for default — the interim order's life comes to an end. The bench cited Ramesh Ramaji Akre v. Mangalabai and Ors., (2002) SCC OnLine Bom 376, in support of this proposition.

The bench concluded that the temple administration cannot be justified by reference to the 1982 interim order, and held categorically that the said interim order “ceased to have effect long ago.”

Executive Officer Cannot Ordinarily Double as Fit Person

On the second issue, the bench examined the statutory framework. Under the HR&CE Act 1959, a Fit Person is appointed when there is a vacancy in the office of trustee. The bench characterised the appointment of a Fit Person as an interim, ad hoc arrangement. Temple administration, the bench held, must vest only in a Board of Trustees.

An Executive Officer is appointed under Section 45 of the Act by the Commissioner, and the appointment is governed by the Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015. The bench quoted Rule 3 of those Rules in full, which lists the circumstances in which the Commissioner may appoint an Executive Officer — ranging from persistent default in administration to misappropriation of temple funds. Rule 4(a) of the same Rules specifically mandates that the Executive Officer shall function along with a trustee. Rule 14 of the Functioning of the Board of Trustees Rules further provides that the Executive Officer shall carry into effect the decisions of the Board of Trustees.

The bench reasoned that the statutory scheme contemplates two distinct persons — the Executive Officer and the trustee — functioning together. If both functions are combined in one person, the system of checks and balances disappears. The bench invoked Lord Acton's observation that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, noting that several temples have annual budgets running into several crores of rupees. A multi-member trust board alongside a Government-appointed Executive Officer provides a structural check on power; the absence of any trust board, with the Executive Officer also acting as Fit Person, is not conducive to proper administration.

The bench accordingly held that the Government or the Commissioner of HR&CE ought not to vest the power of Fit Person in the Executive Officer of the same temple. Where such an arrangement is unavoidable, it must be terminated at the earliest. The bench also referred to its earlier order dated 22 September 2020 in W.P.(MD) No. 10903 of 2020 to the same effect.

The bench did leave a narrow exception: under exceptional circumstances, for a very brief duration in the interest of the temple's administration, an Executive Officer may also function as Fit Person. But this was framed as an exception requiring prompt resolution, not a baseline arrangement.

Executive Officer's Powers Are Confined to Temple Property

On the third issue, the bench turned to the text of Section 45(2) of the HR&CE Act 1959, which provides that the Executive Officer shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties as may be assigned by the Commissioner, with a proviso that only such powers and duties as appertain to the administration of the properties of the religious institution shall be assigned to the Executive Officer.

The bench held that the word “only” in the proviso is significant. The provision forbids the Executive Officer from interfering in the religious aspects of temple administration. The Executive Officer cannot deal with any aspect of temple administration that partakes of a religious character. The expression “properties” covers both immovable and movable properties, including income; but power cannot go beyond the administration of those properties.

The bench made the principle concrete with an illustration. If a Kumbhabhishekam is to be conducted, the date, timing, and manner of the consecration ceremony are purely religious aspects. Anything that has to do directly with worship falls within the realm of religion and is beyond the Executive Officer's remit. The bench also noted that the answer to this third issue lies in the proviso to Section 45(2) itself, and not in judicial precedent.

The bench directed that religious activities, customary practices, and traditions of the temple must necessarily be carried out only by persons well versed in the customs and traditions of the temple concerned. The Executive Officer is precluded from that domain entirely.

The bench also clarified that the question before it was not about the scope of the State's regulatory power over temples generally — a broader constitutional question — but specifically about the extent of interference permissible by an Executive Officer appointed under Section 45 of the Act.

Outcome

The Division Bench disposed of W.P. No. 20764 of 2026 with the findings set out above and without costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The order was directed to the Secretary, Religious Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, and to the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.