The Supreme Court of India recently posed a pointed question to the central government: “Will you allow Muslims to be part of the management of Hindu religious trusts?” This query came during a hearing related to the functioning and administration of religious institutions, and it opens up a deeper national conversation on the limits and expectations of secularism in a diverse country like India.
The Supreme Court was examining the structure and regulations governing religious trusts, especially focusing on whether governments can or should involve themselves in the management of these bodies. While many Hindu temples and trusts across states are regulated by government-backed bodies or committees, minority religious trusts such as those managed by Muslims or Christians are often allowed greater autonomy. This has led to growing questions about parity, fairness, and constitutional principles in the governance of religious organizations.
During the hearing, the bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asked the government’s counsel whether the same standards would apply across communities. “If the government appoints members to manage Hindu temples and allows people of all backgrounds into such committees, would you also allow Muslims to be on these Hindu religious trusts? Or allow Hindus into Muslim trusts?” This question was not just rhetorical—it challenged the government to clarify its stance on religious inclusivity and administrative consistency.
The core issue here is whether the state, in its secular role, should treat all religious communities equally—not just in terms of rights but also in terms of responsibilities and interventions. The court’s question hints at a possible imbalance: while state governments actively oversee and manage Hindu temples and trusts in several states, they do not do the same for minority-run institutions. Critics argue that this is discriminatory and contradicts the secular fabric of the Constitution. On the other hand, defenders of the current system argue that historical and legal differences justify this approach.
One major point of contention is that several Hindu temples, particularly in South India, are under direct government control. Their revenues, rituals, priest appointments, and daily administration are regulated by state authorities. However, Waqf Boards and Church authorities largely control Muslim and Christian religious institutions, with limited government interference. This discrepancy, some argue, results in unequal treatment of religions under the law.
The Supreme Court’s intervention aims to question the logic of this dual system. If secularism is truly to be practiced in letter and spirit, should it not apply uniformly across all religious groups? Should the government regulate or stay away from all religious bodies equally, instead of selectively intervening?
This question also touches on Article 25 to 30 of the Indian Constitution, which deal with the right to freedom of religion and the management of religious affairs. While these rights allow religious communities to manage their own affairs, the state also retains the power to intervene for social welfare and reform. Balancing these two aspects has always been complex.
The government has not yet provided a detailed response to the Supreme Court’s query, but the implications are profound. A clear policy will have to consider not just constitutional norms but also political sensitivities and historical contexts. Allowing members of different religions into each other’s trusts could be seen as progressive and inclusive by some—but also as intrusive or disrespectful by others, especially in a society where religious identities remain deeply significant.
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s line of questioning may push for a broader re-evaluation of how religious institutions are managed in India. Should the government maintain its control over Hindu temples, or relinquish it to create a level playing field across faiths? Or should it extend similar oversight mechanisms to all religious trusts, regardless of community?
As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: the issue goes beyond mere administration. It strikes at the heart of India’s secular ideals and tests the state’s ability to balance tradition, religious freedom, and constitutional equality. The Supreme Court’s question may just be the beginning of a much-needed national conversation.