With the cook in some temples paid as little as Rs 400 a month, the Madras High Court has ordered a living wage for temple staff in public temples under the HR&CE Department, giving the Commissioner two months to file an Action-Taken Report and holding that tying pay to a temple’s income breaches the right to life.
Madurai: A direction of June 7, 2021 to fix the pay of temple staff under the Minimum Wages Act has remained unenforced, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has recorded, as it directed the HR&CE Department to ensure that a living wage is paid to every staff member of public temples under its control. Linking a temple employee’s pay to the income of the temple he serves breaches his fundamental right to life, the Bench held [Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan v. The Secretary to Government & Another].
The order of October 23, 2026 came from a Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice P. Murugan, which allowed the writ petition and gave the Commissioner of HR&CE two months to file an Action-Taken Report.
Pay “hardly sufficient to keep the body and soul together”
Executive Officers posted to temples are government servants paid by the State, the Court explained, whereas temple staff are paid out of each temple’s own income. Temples without properties cannot generate enough, and their staff end up with a pittance. It said:
“Our conscience is shocked that thousands of temple staff are paid atrociously poor pay. The amount paid to them would be hardly sufficient to keep the body and soul together. We may remark that the lowest National Floor Level Minimum Wage is Rs.176/- per day. What is drawn by many temple staff in Tamil Nadu is lower than that.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Bench noted that labour paid below the minimum wage falls within “forced labour” under Article 23. Temple staff, it added, are often unable to form a union and voice their grievances, which is why the petitioner had taken up their cause.
“Linking the pay of a person with the income drawn by the concerned religious institution breaches his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India… Payment of a sum that is far far below the living wage certainly attracts the fierce stare of Article 23 of the Constitution of India.”
Direction No. 51 and the petition
Petitioner Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan of Mannarkovil village in Tirunelveli district sought a writ of mandamus directing the State and the HR&CE Commissioner to pay Archakas and all other temple employees as per the Minimum Wages Act and on par with government servants, irrespective of each temple’s income.
He relied on Direction No. 51, issued on June 7, 2021 by a Division Bench of Justice R. Mahadevan (as he then was) and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu in a suo motu writ petition on temple management. It said the salary and service benefits of all temple staff, including archakas and oduvars, must be fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and on par with government servants. Review applications against that direction were disposed of on June 2, 2023, with the Court clarifying that the State is bound to comply with the Minimum Wages Act for temple employees.
On a specific query, the State confirmed that those orders had neither been stayed nor set aside, the Bench recorded, yet they remained unenforced more than three years later. It held that a fresh writ petition to enforce a judicial order holding the field is maintainable, and that an interim stay in the petitioner’s earlier writ appeal, WA(MD) No. 1180 of 2023, did not stand in the way.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court: “Temple Funds Belong To Deity, Can’t Be Used For Govt Projects”
A decent wage, with no fixed formula
Because the issue carries financial implications, the Bench said it would not be justified in directing payment of the statutory minimum wage, but held that a decent wage must certainly be paid, pointing to the living wage under Article 43. It declined to lay down a straitjacket formula, noting that some priests serve only an hour or two under the “Murai System”, while in other temples one person is priest, cook, sweeper and gatekeeper. A system has to be evolved case by case, and that is the paramount duty of the department.
The Court rejected any plea of scarce resources. It suggested patronage groups of devotees for each temple, use of the HR&CE staff, social media and technology, and the involvement of industrialists such as Sridhar Vembu of Zoho to develop revenue models. It held:
“It is unfortunate that till date, they have not bothered to lift their little finger to ameliorate the pitiable conditions of the temple staff… We expect the HR&CE Commissioner to take immediate steps in this regard. It is he who must bell the cat. When binding judicial direction is there to ensure payment of fair wage to the temple staff, the Department and its officials cannot be permitted to keep quiet.”
The writ petition was allowed with a direction to ensure that a living wage is paid to each staff member working in public temples under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department. The Commissioner must submit an Action-Taken Report within two months. No costs were imposed.
What it means for small temples
The order turns a five-year-old judicial direction that stayed on paper into a time-bound obligation, with the HR&CE Commissioner personally answerable through an Action-Taken Report. By tying temple pay to Articles 21 and 23, the Court has framed poverty wages in temples as a fundamental rights issue rather than a matter of each temple’s budget.
For thousands of archakas, cooks, sweepers and other staff in small temples with little income, the ruling means the department can no longer point to a temple’s poor finances as the reason for their pay.
Case Title: Periyanambi Narasimha Gopalan v. The Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department & Another
Case No.: WP(MD) No. 30465 of 2026
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice P. Murugan, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Date of Order: October 23, 2026
Appearance: K. Subbu Ranga Bharathi for the Petitioner; A. Sivasubramanian, Additional Government Pleader, for the Respondents