SC Petition Seeks Wage Review for Temple Staff Under State Control: Right to Livelihood Challenge
Contents4
Hindustan Times - India · 10 May 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance
A PIL filed in the Supreme Court demands fair wages for priests and temple staff in state-controlled temples, invoking Article 21's right to livelihood and challenging state governments' role as employers under the Code on Wages, 2019.
Key points
Ashwini Upadhyay filed a PIL seeking judicial intervention to review wages of priests, sevadars, and temple staff in state-controlled temples, citing systemic exploitation under state administration.
The petition argues that state-controlled temples create an employer-employee relationship, making priests and staff eligible for minimum wages under Section 2 of the Code on Wages, 2019.
Article 21 of the Constitution is invoked, claiming denial of dignified wages violates the fundamental right to livelihood, especially when states control temple finances and administration.
Recent protests in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana highlight the issue, where temple staff are paid below minimum wage for unskilled workers despite state control through endowment departments.
[GS2-Governance] The case tests the state's dual role as both temple administrator and employer, raising questions about compliance with labor laws and directive principles of state policy.
A 2025 incident in Tamil Nadu revealed extreme vulnerability when priests were prohibited from accepting dakshina (donations), their primary income source, exposing arbitrary state power over religious functionaries.
The PIL contrasts state control over lakhs of temples with no similar oversight on mosques or churches, suggesting discriminatory application of secularism principles.
Way Forward: States should establish transparent wage boards for temple staff, align remuneration with inflation-indexed minimum wages, and formalize employment terms under labor laws while respecting religious autonomy.
Key terms
- Code on Wages, 2019
- A consolidated labor law replacing four outdated wage-related acts, it universalizes minimum wage standards across sectors (Section 2). For UPSC, this represents India's labor reform agenda and the state's duty to ensure fair compensation.
- Article 21 (Right to Livelihood)
- Judicially expanded under Indian Constitution to include dignified living standards. This case tests its applicability to religious functionaries under state control, relevant for GS2 questions on fundamental rights enforcement.
- State-controlled temples
- Temples managed by government endowment departments under laws like Hindu Religious Institutions Act. UPSC relevance lies in debates around state interference in religious affairs versus welfare obligations.
- Dakshina
- Traditional offerings to priests for services, often their primary income. Its prohibition by state order (as in Tamil Nadu case) raises GS2 questions on cultural rights versus labor rights under state administration.
Practice question
Critically examine the constitutional and legal challenges surrounding the payment of fair wages to priests and temple staff in state-controlled temples in India. (250 words, 15 marks)
GS2 15 marks 250 words Mains
Key terms to include: Article 21 Code on Wages 2019 state-controlled temples dakshina employer-employee relationship Directive Principles of State Policy endowment departments right to livelihood
Answer framework
Introduction
Briefly introduce the issue of fair wages for temple staff under state control, mentioning the recent PIL and its constitutional basis.
Constitutional Dimensions
Article 21's right to livelihood and dignified living standards for temple staff.
Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 39, 43) mandating fair wages.
Conflict between state's role as employer and protector of religious institutions under Article 25-26.
Legal Framework
Applicability of Code on Wages, 2019 to state-controlled temples.
Judicial precedents on state's responsibility as employer.
Challenges in defining employer-employee relationship in religious contexts.
Governance Issues
State endowment departments' dual role as administrators and employers.
Disparities in treatment across different religious institutions.
Impact of arbitrary prohibitions (like dakshina bans) on livelihoods.
Social and Economic Implications
Exploitation of religious functionaries under state control.
Economic vulnerability of temple staff despite state supervision.
Need for transparent wage mechanisms in religious institutions.
Conclusion
Suggest a balanced approach that respects religious autonomy while ensuring compliance with labor laws and constitutional rights, possibly through specialized wage boards for religious institutions.
Fact check
Issues found Overall severity: medium
A 2025 incident in Tamil Nadu revealed extreme vulnerability when priests were prohibited from accepting dakshina (donations), their primary income source, exposing arbitrary state power over religious functionaries.
The source mentions February 7, 2025, but does not specify 'extreme vulnerability' or 'primary income source' as stated in the claim. Severity: medium
The PIL contrasts state control over lakhs of temples with no similar oversight on mosques or churches, suggesting discriminatory application of secularism principles.
The source mentions 'lakhs of temples' but does not explicitly contrast with mosques or churches in terms of oversight. Severity: medium