There is something interesting happening in the TVK-led Tamil Nadu. On one hand, the state government has cancelled the administrative sanctions passed under the previous DMK government for 46 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department projects worth Rs 245.85 crore. On the other, the same government has approached the Supreme Court against the January 2026 Madras High Court verdict allowing Hindus to light a lamp once a year on a stone pillar situated near a dargah.
The timing deserves attention. On June 11, the TVK government moved the Supreme Court. Eight days later, on June 19, it cancelled the sanctions.
The cancellation was justified. Under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959, temple funds can only be used for religious and charitable purposes, not for commercial ventures such as shopping complexes or marriage halls. The Madras High Court had reiterated this position in its August 2025 verdict striking down five government orders authorising the construction of marriage halls using temple funds.
The court held that the marriage halls were intended to be rented out and were therefore commercial in nature. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it too observed: ‘Devotees don’t offer money to temples for setting up marriage halls.’ The TVK government’s June 19 decision was therefore consistent with both the law and judicial precedent.
According to the Vijay government, the decision was taken to reduce the financial burden on temples arising from litigation and construction costs. The Rs 245.85 crore earmarked for the projects will instead be redirected towards temple-centric schemes benefiting temples, devotees and heritage conservation. That decision deserves appreciation.
Its decision to challenge the January 2026 Madras High Court verdict, however, deserves scrutiny. Like the August 2025 judgment, this verdict was also rooted in existing legal principles. The High Court relied on a 1923 decree and the geography of the Thiruparankundram hill to conclude that the land on which the stone pillar stands belongs to the Hindu side. The issue, therefore, was one of legal right rather than custom. Detailed basis on which the Madras High Court delivered the now-challenged verdict in the Thiruparankundram hill case can be read here.
Taken together, these two decisions raise questions about the consistency of the TVK government’s approach. While it accepted one judicial interpretation grounded in law, it chose to challenge another that was similarly based on historical records and legal rights.
That inconsistency cannot be brushed aside merely because Vijay has publicly projected himself as respectful of Hindu religious sentiments by, for instance, wearing a tilak or refraining from making derogatory remarks about Sanatan Dharma. Governments must ultimately be judged by the consistency of their actions, not by symbolism.
