The Supreme Court on Monday, 18 May declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a uniform wage and welfare framework for priests, sevadars, and temple staff employed in state-controlled temples across India. The bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, expressed disinclination to interfere in the matter and refused to admit the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who appeared in person.

How the Hearing Concluded

After the apex court signalled its unwillingness to examine the issue, Upadhyay sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate authorities. The bench thereafter recorded the matter as dismissed as withdrawn. The court's order read: 'The petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the appropriate authorities. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.'

What the PIL Demanded

The petition had sought directions to the Centre and state governments to constitute a judicial commission or expert committee to review wages and service conditions of priests, sevadars, and temple staff in government-controlled temples. It also sought a declaration that such workers fall within the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(k) of the Code on Wages, 2019, making them eligible for minimum wages and labour welfare protections.

The Core Argument

The plea contended that once state governments assume administrative, financial, and economic control over temples, an employer-employee relationship arises between temple administrations and their workers. It alleged that priests and temple staff in several states survive on 'arbitrary honorariums, dakshina-based payments and meagre remuneration', reportedly ranging between ₹1,000 and ₹5,000 per month, with no pension, healthcare, or social security cover.

The petition cited statutory frameworks governing temples in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, and Kerala, arguing that governments exercise pervasive control over appointments, service conditions, disciplinary supervision, and temple revenues — while simultaneously denying labour protections to temple workers. The plea also invoked Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, contending that denial of fair wages violates the fundamental rights of priests and temple staff.

Broader Context

The petition had referenced observations of the Allahabad High Court on minimum wages for temple staff, arguing the issue carried nationwide implications warranting Supreme Court intervention. The question of state control over Hindu religious endowments — and the corresponding rights of temple employees — has been a recurring flashpoint in debates over religious autonomy and labour law. This comes amid broader discussions on whether workers in state-managed religious institutions should be brought under standard labour welfare frameworks. With the plea now withdrawn, Upadhyay retains the option to pursue the matter before appropriate statutory or administrative authorities.