The Supreme Court declined a PIL seeking review of wages and service conditions of priests, sevadars, and temple staff in government-controlled temples. The Bench said, “Mandiron ke pujari ke chakkar mein mat padiye… we are not entertaining this.”
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the appointment of a judicial commission or expert committee to assess the wages and service conditions of priests, sevadars, and temple employees working in government-controlled temples nationwide.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta indicated that it was not inclined to interfere with the matter.
During the proceedings, the judges orally remarked,
“Mandiron ke pujari ke chakkar mein mat padiye. Aapko pata hai pujari kitna paisa kamate hai? We are not entertaining this.”
Upadhyay argued the issue should be examined, pointing to observations made by the Allahabad High Court concerning minimum wages for temple staff. He maintained that priests and workers in state-run temples should be allowed to live with dignity.
He also contended that although many temples are brought under government control, there is no comparable framework for mosques or churches.
Despite these submissions, the Bench refused to proceed further on the petition. Upadhyay then sought permission to withdraw the case so that he could instead approach the appropriate authorities, which the Court allowed.
The petition filed by advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay,
In his petition, Upadhyay sought directions for the Centre and States to constitute a commission to review pay and to recognise priests and temple workers as employees under the Code on Wages, 2019.
The petition claimed that when the State takes administrative and financial control of temples, an employer-employee relationship comes into being, thereby triggering the applicability of labour welfare laws.
The plea further alleged that in several States, priests and temple workers are not even paid minimum wages and often depend on donations or honorariums rather than fixed salaries.
It also argued that the absence of fair wages, social security, and proper service conditions violates their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.