The Tamil Nadu HR&CE body told the Supreme Court that temples lack profit motive and cannot be treated as “industry” under labour laws. The issue arises in a crucial hearing where the Court is reconsidering its 1978 ruling on the definition of “industry.”
In a significant development before the Supreme Court, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Commissioner has raised serious questions over the long-standing definition of “industry” laid down by the apex court in 1978. The issue was brought up during ongoing proceedings before a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
Appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE body, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta argued that temples and religious institutions should not be treated as “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The HR&CE department is responsible for overseeing the administration, management, and maintenance of Hindu temples and charitable endowments across the State.
Gupta strongly contended that the nature and functioning of temples are fundamentally different from industrial or commercial establishments. He questioned the applicability of the Supreme Court’s earlier interpretation and emphasized that religious institutions operate on a completely distinct footing.
Highlighting the financial structure of temple administration, Gupta pointed out that most temples do not function with a profit motive. Instead, many are sustained through surplus funds generated from donations received by a few financially stronger temples. This redistribution, he argued, is aimed at maintaining religious and charitable activities rather than engaging in any commercial enterprise.
He further clarified the essential criteria that should define an “industry,” stating that it must involve a structured setup where employers and employees work together to produce goods or services that cater to human needs, and importantly, such an activity must have a commercial character or profit motive.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Directs NEERI: “Assess Glass Industry Impact on Taj Mahal”
Gupta told the bench that
“activities in temples have nothing to do with industrial activity or disputes covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.”
He stressed that bringing temples within the scope of “industry” would be legally incorrect and inconsistent with the purpose of the law.
He went on to explain that
“industry must comprise a unit where the employer and employees collaborate to produce something for human needs and it must have a commercial character or profit motive.”
According to him, temple operations do not meet these requirements, as their primary objective is religious service and public welfare, not economic production or profit-making.
The arguments form part of a larger constitutional debate on revisiting and possibly redefining the scope of the term “industry,” which has wide implications for labour laws and their applicability across various sectors, including religious and charitable institutions.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in this matter is expected to have far-reaching consequences, particularly in clarifying whether institutions like temples can be brought under the ambit of labour and industrial laws in India.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Industry
