On the northern fringes of Madurai, where the hills rise like guardians and the air carries the scents of neem and tamarind that punctuate the forest line, stands the ancient Azhagar Kovil—the hill-temple of Kallazhagar (Lord Vishnu), revered for centuries as the deity who descends to the plains once a year to bless his devotees.
Nestled within the dense folds of the Azhagar Hills, the temple’s gopuram flashes between tree canopies like a beacon, and the murmuring of hill streams blends with the chants of pilgrims. For Tamil Nadu, this is not just another shrine—it is a spiritual centre of the annual Chithirai Thiruvizha festival, when lakhs gather to witness the dramatic moment Kallazhagar steps into the Vaigai, turning Madurai into a vast, swirling sea of devotion.
Yet, within this almost mythical setting, a more earthly reality has been unfolding. Over the years, the temple’s surroundings have begun to resemble a construction site. New walls, concrete pillars, and foundations have appeared with alarming frequency.
“Some or the other facility is being built with scant regard for the heritage value of the place or fund utilisation rules”, say temple activists who have been monitoring the functioning of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE), which controls the temple.
A Court Steps In
On 22 October, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) intervened decisively, ordering a blanket stay on all new construction works within the precincts and surroundings of Azhagar Kovil.
Central to the court’s action was a detailed intervention by temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, who submitted a voluminous dossier containing over 100 photographs documenting facilities in disrepair, structures built and abandoned, and areas where construction had begun without proper sanction. His submission emphasised a simple point: when existing facilities lie unused or neglected, why is the administration pushing for more?
This case, however, stands out for another reason. It was not initiated by well-known temple activists like Narasimhan or TR Ramesh—who has filed a similar petition concerning the Tiruvannamalai temple—but by two ordinary devotees: Venkatesh Sowrirajan, a CA student from Nagapattinam, and A V B Prabhu, a local resident from a village near the temple.
Representing Sowrirajan was Anirudh Vadiraj, a young Chennai-based advocate who began his independent practice only in January 2024. Appearing for Prabhu were seasoned HRCE lawyers Arun Swaminathan and M R Venkatesh.
Restaurant or Annadanakudam? How The Case Began?
Recounting how he took up the case, Vadiraj told this writer: “It all began through a casual conversation I was having with Sowrirajan. When he told me that some restaurant was coming up in the temple complex, I was shocked.
“Are you mistaking an Annadanakudam for a restaurant?” is what I asked him, said Vadiraj. As Sowrirajan said that it was indeed going to be a restaurant, Vadiraj advised him to file an RTI application in order to confirm the details of the construction.
“Generally in temple matters you don’t really get responses for RTIs. That has been their usual modus operandi. But we were surprised that we did get a reply for this. What shocked my conscience even more was the fact that not just the restaurant was being built using temple money but also fancy equipment such as Chinese kadai, Tandoori ovens etc. were also being purchased.
“The moment we got this information we thought we should definitely approach the Madurai Bench of the High Court.”
The Court granted an interim injunction with respect to four of the 12 proposed constructions. These were two restaurants, a VIP cottage and commercial shops. The issue of shops had already been settled by a Division Bench in Chennai in the case of another temple (the Nandeeswarar temple case in Chengalpattu).
But there was more to come in the case as Prabhu also challenged some of the constructions and Narasimhan made a plea to be included as an intervenor. These broadened the scope of scrutiny.
Expenditure Rules And The Government’s Interpretation: The Heart Of The Legal Battle
At the core of the dispute is the question of how the surplus funds of the temple may be used. The Act states that they can be used for religious purposes or the welfare of the poor, such as the construction of Veda Pathshaala, Agama Pathshaala, shelters for destitutes, facilities for annadanam etc.
Commercial ventures do not fall within the permitted categories. Yet restaurants, VIP cottages and shops have found their way into the temple’s construction agenda.
The question that arises then is: How is the government justifying them?
Explaining the government’s position, Vadiraj said the department appears to rely on an interplay of Sections 66, 36 and 86 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
“Section 36 deals with surplus funds and says they must be used only for the purposes listed under Section 66. Section 66 itself is a detailed list of permissible expenditures, all of which pertain to religious or charitable purposes. Section 86 concerns budgeting but does not authorise capital projects.
“Their argument essentially is that once something is budgeted under Section 86, they can spend as they wish,” he said. “Our argument is the opposite: even general temple funds must be used strictly for the deity and religious purposes, not diverted to non-religious purposes. If the Act is so strict on the use of funds that are surplus, then the logical conclusion is that it intended that general funds be used on an even stringent basis.”
He illustrated the problem with an example: if a temple’s income is Rs 1,000 and recurring expenses such as purchasing deepams, oil, garlands or paying the employees amounts to Rs 700, the Rs 300 surplus must be used only for purposes permitted under Section 66.
But the HRCE department treats these as one. At the start of the year while estimating the income to be Rs 1,000 under Section 86, instead of setting aside the Rs 300 as surplus, it budgets expenses against that amount too, resulting in the entire amount being termed as budgeted expenditure. And as a result they claim that the provisions of Section 66 are not applicable to the constructions being undertaken by them.
He added that there is evidence fixed deposits—accumulated over years from surplus funds—were broken to finance the new constructions.
Echoing this, temple activist Ramesh said officials have taken to using the term ‘regular funds’, which does not exist anywhere in the Act, to justify spending beyond legal limits. He noted that Azhagar Kovil has around Rs 80–85 crore in surplus funds, over Rs 50 crore of which has been earmarked for new works. “This will wipe out the corpus accumulated over decades,” he said, adding that using surplus funds for non-permissible purposes sets a dangerous precedent.
Irony of Government Spending
The result of such expenses is already manifesting itself, according to Swaminathan. “The temple authorities have put up an advertisement board inside the temple complex inviting donations for the Kumbhabhishekam, even as the administration is simultaneously breaking fixed deposits and draining accumulated surplus to fund non-essential construction.”
“Isn’t this ironical—you are emptying the treasury for things you are not supposed to and then ask for contributions to fund the essentials,” he asks.
Contracts for Kickbacks?
The case also turned the spotlight on the state of existing facilities. Narasimhan spent a few days at the temple documenting every building and its condition. He found several cottages built using temple money lying abandoned and unused. He also pointed out earlier constructions, such as a Yatri Niwas and a Virundhu Mandapam inaugurated by the Chief Minister just a year ago, are not being utilised.
A similar question was raised about the quarters planned for archakas. “There is an archaka quarters already and nobody lives there,” stated Ramesh. Pointing out another problem with the proposal, Swaminathan said, “The temple has only two permanent archakas and several temporary ones whom the HRCE department has not regularised.”
He asked why, under these circumstances, the department was constructing so many residential units. “They must say if they want permanent archakas or only the accommodation for them. Are constructions happening for the sake of lining someone’s pockets with money from the temple’s coffers?”
Pattern Not Confined To One Temple?
Swaminathan drew parallels to the situation at the Palani Murugan Temple, where a number of new construction projects worth Rs 254 crore are proposed. Apart from a number of high-rise buildings and commercial complexes, there are proposals to construct a new winch facility (the temple currently has three)—all of which would increase the load on a hill that is vulnerable to landslides.
Explaining the situation, he said, “The department does not seem to care about the impact of these projects on the hill. Even something as basic as a soil test was conducted in the most unprofessional way. The task was given to the temple’s own polytechnic institute, which reports to the executive officer. What autonomy do they have? And another private consultant gave a report with a disclaimer distancing itself from responsibility for any untoward incidents.”
A case has now been filed seeking a stay and a comprehensive review of the works.
Violation of Heritage Rules?
Concerns at Azhagar Kovil are not confined to spending alone—they extend to the protection of heritage structures. One pertains to the Thirumalai Nayakar Mandapam near the temple, which is a protected monument. Under heritage rules, no construction can take place within 200 metres of such a structure without explicit permission. According to Swaminathan, this approval has not been obtained.
The other issue relates to a 2,000-year-old fort wall near the temple. “This ancient structure was demolished, the granite stones scattered around, and new construction begun in the same area—all without proper approval.”
“What was the need to demolish the ancient heritage structure? If there were any damaged parts, those could have been repaired,” said Swaminathan.
Did Trustees Act As Puppets?
The Act places significant responsibilities on trustees. They are expected to act as a guardian, safeguarding the property, planning the expenditure and ensuring that the shrine functions properly. As per the rules, only they have the power to propose temple works.
However, it is often seen that such announcements are made by the HRCE minister in the Assembly.
“Neither the minister nor the commissioner or executive officer”, he argued, has the authority to declare such works without a prior resolution by trustees. “By announcing such works beforehand, they are putting pressure on the trustees to approve them.”
“Around 90 per cent of the proposed works do not fall under Section 66. Yet the resolutions were passed by the trustees without examining whether the works were necessary or beneficial to devotees. The administration now plans to spend nearly Rs 57 crore from temple funds.”
While they were not listed as respondents initially, the Court has directed them to appear before it during the next hearing. “Their presence is crucial to find out what led them to ratify such large expenditures without proper scrutiny,” said Vadiraj.
Challenging the Government’s Presence
While the minister’s announcement has come under scrutiny, the most consequential procedural issue raised relates to the legality of the Executive Officer (EO) position itself.
According to Ramesh, the EO system created by a 1937 notification was struck down as unconstitutional by a Division Bench on 13 December 1951. The Supreme Court later upheld this judgement.
“Despite this, EOs continue to function in major temples including Srirangam, Tiruvannamalai, Palani, Tiruchendur and Azhagar Kovil.” A government order issued in 1967 attempted to revive the role, but Ramesh says the Commissioner had no authority to issue it. “Even if the order were valid, EO appointments cannot exceed five years at a time, meaning they would have expired decades ago.”
“Under the Management and Preservation of Properties Rules, only trustees can issue contracts. EOs cannot issue them.”
Presenting this argument before the Court, Venkatesh contended that the contracts issued by the EO lack any legal standing.
Compensating the Temple
Even as the petitioners and the government make their case in the Court, some questions that come to the minds of common people are: Does the temple get its money back if the Court rules that the expenditure was unlawful and is there not a way to prevent such expenditures instead of having to approach the Court for each individual temple?
Vadiraj agrees. “Indeed, merely stopping construction in individual temples does not resolve the systemic problem. There must be a deterrent mechanism. It should be something that stops the temple officials from undertaking such activities in the first place.”
“The good news is that the law has provisions to ensure compensation,” says Swaminathan. “The government announced these works in the Assembly, which amounts to an inducement of the trustees. Thus, if temple funds are lost, the government may be held ‘vicariously liable.’ A good judgement may direct the government to return the money,” he holds.
Sacred Landscape At A Crossroads
Azhagar Kovil, built by the Pandyas, is more than a centuries-old shrine; it is a living landscape woven into Tamil Nadu’s cultural and spiritual memory. Yet it finds itself threatened today not by outside forces but by unchecked bureaucratic ambition, opaque financial decisions and an unrelenting push for construction driven more by administrative enthusiasm than by religious need.
The Madras High Court’s stay is thus an important pause—perhaps even a turning point. But whether it leads to deeper reforms in temple administration across Tamil Nadu will depend on what unfolds next in this case.
For now, devotees who once walked the serene, tree-lined paths to Azhagar Kovil are left asking whether this sacred complex will be preserved for worship or consumed by concrete.
Also Read: Inside The Battle To Protect Tiruvannamalai Temple’s Sacred Space: A Conversation With TR Ramesh
