NEED FOR GOVERNMENT

CONTROL OVER RELIGIOUS AND

CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN
INDIA

-SUBMITTED BY
Adithya Rajukurup
2nd Sem ,BA LLB ,NLU Visakhapatnam
 INTRODUCTION

India's written constitution serves as a representation of its democracy. Hindus make up the
bulk of the population in this subcontinent. It is thought that Hinduism is one of the world's
oldest religions. Hinduism has a few stations or subpositions that come in different shapes
and tones. Furthermore, the position and sub-standing differ from one State or one Region to
another. There are also a lot of fluctuations in the training. In the best-case scenario, the
Hindu religion might be seen as an example of solidarity in diversity. The Upanishads, Vedas,
Geethas, and other sacred scriptures are the foundation of Hinduism. By releasing it,
worshippers can let a temple reach its greatest potential. If worshippers are put in charge of
maintaining a temple, it can be done so in an exquisite and wonderful manner. A temple can
operate using a wide variety of modules and configurations. By feeding the hungry,
gurudwaras serve langars, or free meals to the community, which benefits a large number of
people. Similarly, temples should have a budget and a piece of land allotted to them so that
they can concentrate most of their efforts there. They would be able to carry out a wide range
of additional tasks, such helping during the present epidemic phase and during tidal waves
and earthquakes.

Hinduism is seen as a way of life. Hinduism allows for the adoration of even inanimate
objects. The ocean is liked, and the soil is cherished, Ashwatha Vriksha is respected, and
Nagadevatas are loved. The norm that governs everyone, which is standard and consistent for
the rigid minorities throughout the country in all states and association sectors, isn't the same
for the majority of Hindus. The fact that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act
varies across the country makes this peculiarity clear. How is it feasible for a state to oversee
only Hindu temples and no other places of strict reverence in a "secular" nation that ought to
have equal respect for all religions? What is the reason behind the approval of the HR and CE
Act in some states but not in others?

Given the current state of affairs, it raises a crucial question: Is the HR and CE Act's contract
constitutional? This article addresses the various facets of the wide subject of whether or not
India's religious and philanthropic endowments should be under government control.
 BACKGROUND

The former British Government began to relinquish control over temple administration in
1840. They asked a few of the notable mutts in Tamil Nadu to tend to some of the important
temples and endowments. Having obtained the archives or "Muchalikas" from the British
Government, which assured them that they would not retake the temples from the Mutts, the
Heads of Mutts were happy to take over the management of these temples and ensure that
they are administered properly. And so, several important temples came under the complete
control and jurisdiction of Mutts, who managed them skillfully and competently. The Heads
of Mutts and other authorities never discounted the primary functions of worship and the
utilization of cash intended for the maintenance of temples and lead ceremonies. While a few
temples were magnificently run by the Mutts in this way, many other sanctuaries in the
Madras Presidency at the time were left in the hands of private trustees, with the government
at the time playing essentially little role in overseeing them.

The Indian Legislature passed the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1923 (Act I of
1925) in 1925 with the intention of facilitating better management and structuring of certain
religious endowments. Temples were classified as Excepted and Non-excepted temples per
the Act. After the Act was put into effect, its validity was questioned due to the fact that it
was not actually passed. Consequently, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926,
Act II of 1927, which repealed Act I of 1925, was approved by the council. This Act has
undergone periodic revisions. Making references to the progressions that are provided later is
useless. Ten Acts, I of 1928, V of 1929, IV of 1930, XI of 1931, XI of 1934, XII of 1935, XX
of 1938, XXII of 1939, V of 1944, and X of 1946, at the very least, altered the Act by 1946.
Nevertheless, Act XII of 1935 presented a drastic alteration.

The Board was given authority to notify a temple for reasons to be provided by it under a new
chapter, Ch. VI-A, because the Government was not content with the Board's current forces
and decided to provide the Board with a notable and extraordinary force. As a result, it is
usually evident that the Board had systematically gathered its power to control and govern
temples long before independence. Only Hindu Institutions were subject to this awful
government intervention.
 VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 25 & 26 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION

Prejudice is prohibited by Article 14. It also forbids a conceited, absurd Act pertaining to the
state. Letters of similar guarantees are available to any citizen of the country. Discrimination
by the State is unimaginable. These criteria are essentially set in stone. Indian Constitution's
Article 14 is managed by the Territory of West Bengal in the case of Moseb Kaba Chowdhary
and Others. The following is how the Supreme Court has operated: It is supported by the
Supreme Court's rulings that Article 14 condemns separation by both a rule of strategy and a
meaningful legislation. The Supreme Court once more notes in paragraphs 19 and 21 of M.P.
Gopalakrishnan Nair and Anr. v. Territory of Kerala and Ors. that India is a secular country.
Because of the Constitution's 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, secularism is ingrained in the
Preamble.

The purpose of inserting the aforementioned word was to draw attention to the lofty ideals of
secularism and the nation's integrity, given that these organizations are subject to significant
pressures and anxieties and that individual stakeholders have been working to advance their
narrow-minded goals at the extraordinary expense of the general public. It is present and
settled everywhere. The establishment of a religious state is prohibited under the constitution.
The Constitution forbids the establishment of its own religion, but it also restricts the right to
identify as adhering to or favouring a particular religion. The Indian Constitution's definition
of secularism is the equal standing of all religions, without preference or maltreatment of any
one of them. It does not, however, imply the establishment of a society devoid of religious
beliefs. It is clear to us from these case laws that segregation is a request that can be made in
order to fulfil Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. It is also well-established law that Article
14 applies to any segregation. Similar treatment is required for equivalents, and un-rises
should not be given to rises. The establishment of Article 14 of the Constitution is equivalent
treatment. The problem cannot be divided by the state. Whatever the case, the State must
provide sufficient justification and respectable evidence to support any asserted separation. It
makes sense to put everything in this order.

In the case of K. Mukundaraya Bhenoy v. The State of Mysore, the court considered the
authority to manage a sanctuary with severe regulations. After taking everything into
consideration, the Court determined that a measure that transfers the administrative privilege
from a strict division to another body would violate the privilege guaranteed by Article 26 of
the Indian Constitution. In Angappa Goundan v. Kuppammal, the Court considered the issue
of Hindu public temples in its subsequent ruling. After considering Mukundarya Shenoy's
case, a Division Bench of this Court determined that Hindus in general, including all of their
subgroups, fall into a strict category under the meaning of Articles 21 and 26 of the Indian
Constitution. This ruling would demonstrate that the state cannot discriminate between Hindu
religious organizations when it comes to the management of Hindu temples. Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution further challenges the Hindu Religious category's indifference to the
stringent Hindu rule. The state's attempt to justify its denial of the facts as they stand in this
instance has failed.

In the ruling in Bal Patil and Anr. v. Association of India, the Supreme Court had stated. The
Supreme Court has ruled that "Differential medicines to phonetic minorities dependent on
language inside the state is justifiable yet on the off chance that similar idea for minorities
based on religion is energized, the entire nation, which is now underclass and social clashes
because of different troublesome powers, will additionally confront division based on strict
varieties." Thus, we have no hesitation in concluding that the Act protects against violations
of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution on this basis as well.

The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench ruling in the Shirur Mutt case and another
Constitution Bench ruling in Venkataramana Devaru versus Province of Mysore are landmark
rulings that Indian courts are expected to abide by with regard to Article 26 of the Indian
Constitution and denominational rights. These rulings were made in the Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras versus Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt. The Supreme Court agreed with the Madras High Court that certain sections of the
1951 HR and CE Act were beyond the bounds of the Constitution. It also clearly understood
that the organization should always be left to the category, even though the governing body
could try to oversee it. In agreement with the Court, the Madras Advocate General stated that
he was powerless to defend those regions.
 CONTROL BY THE GOVERNMENT OVER HINDU
TEMPLES IS ILLEGAL

Although India has a long history of religious and benevolent donations, official supervision
only became common during British colonial rule. By passing a number of regulations, the
British government aimed to guarantee appropriate management and stop the
misappropriation of these endowments. This framework was passed down to the Indian
government after independence, which proceeded to improve and enact rules to manage these
endowments. A few years ago, at a conference held in Delhi, over a dozen attorneys, activists,
and other civil society leaders voiced their concerns over the government's "illegal"
ownership of Hindu temples. According to HDAS secretary Swami Paramatmanandaji, the
organization has petitioned the Supreme Court to declare that some State Acts pertaining to
temples are unconstitutional. HDAS oversaw the symposium's organization. Pinky Anand, an
attorney for the Supreme Court, contended that the sections of the statute that gave the
government permission to seize temples were void and unenforceable.

The head of the Temple Worshippers Society asserts that hundreds of temples with millions
of dollars' worth of assets have been taken over by the government. He said that the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1951, which dealt with the appointment of
executive officers in temples, had been declared "illegal" by the Supreme Court, and that the
same provisions were reinstated in the 1959 Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Act. Speaking on the subject of Hindu victimization and "discrimination" by the
Indian government, judiciary, and other state institutions, a number of speakers emphasized
the necessity for equality between Hindus and minorities.

Rama Jois, a former chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, said that an 11-
judge Supreme Court panel found that Article 30 of the Constitution did not grant minorities
any special treatment. A "right" is not necessary; just "protection" is. "No group or individual
should receive a benefit." Vishnu Sadashiv Kokje believed that the question of state control
over temples could not be resolved through the legal system, thus Hindus had to find
alternative ways to stir up trouble and exert pressure. Supreme Court attorney K.N. Bhat, who
acted as Lord Ram's attorney in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, issued a warning about the
unpredictability of judicial remedies.
 DEMAND TO UNCONTROL TEMPLES FROM THE
GOVERNMENT

India has a long history of religious and charitable endowments; these endowments are
known as 'wakfs' for Muslim properties and ‘maths' or 'temples' for Hindu holdings. India is
renowned for its rich tapestry of religions and cultural traditions. The nation's social and
economic environment is greatly influenced by these endowments. But there have frequently
been disagreements about the administration and supervision of these endowments, which
begs the question of whether government intervention is necessary. The need for government
involvement in the management of India's religious and philanthropic assets is examined in
this article. Preventing the misappropriation and poor management of resources is one of the
main justifications for government control. Endowments for religion and charity can involve
significant sums of money and priceless assets. There is a chance of fraud, embezzlement,
and resource misallocation in the absence of adequate control. In order to guarantee that
endowment funds are used for their intended purposes—such as preserving houses of
worship, financing humanitarian endeavours, and assisting educational institutions—
government oversight seeks to promote accountability and openness.

For millennia, religious organizations and places of worship have made a substantial
contribution to the social and cultural fabric of our country. For instance, there are
approximately 30,00,000 places of worship in the United States, based on statistics from the
2011 Census (Kishore, 2016). Although the precise number of them is unknown, Hindu
temples probably account for the majority of them. Since British administration, India has
had government control over its temples; this authority was further solidified following
independence by several state-level regulations. They currently have state endowment
institutions in charge of all the temples within their authority. Considering how poorly they
have performed over time in a number of areas, many have questioned whether having
government authority over temples is a wise idea.

The government's authority over the temples is to be ceded. A private member's bill was
recently introduced in parliament, and court cases have recently been argued. Hindu religious
trusts ought to be granted the same immunity from governmental scrutiny as Muslim and
Christian religious trusts, in light of the ongoing discussion around the Covid-19 epidemic. In
India, state governments are in charge of almost 4 lakh temples, but they have no equivalent
authority over Christian and Muslim religious organizations. There are calls for changes to
the "Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) Act 1951," which gives state
governments the authority to take possession of and manage temples and their assets.

Over fifteen State governments are in charge of managing exclusively Hindu places of
worship, primarily temples. Their responsibilities include choosing temple managers and
collecting 13–18% service fees. As a result, the neighborhood will be unable to defend its
own best interests. They contend that this is unfair since prejudice of this kind exclusively
targets the Hindu community. There is a secularism violation in this situation. Furthermore,
the Indian government is prohibited from managing religious organizations, as stipulated by
the constitution. It is said that the Mughals left the British in charge of the temple's valuables.
Following India's independence, the Jawaharlal Nehru government maintained its policy of
managing temples by enforcing the HRCE Act in 1951. Churches and mosques do not have
this kind of oversight. We further urge that temples be free of all forms of control. Renowned
Supreme Court lawyer J. Sai Deepak asked the government to change the Act because he
believed it was the main problem. According to tradition, the "Raja" (king) is not entitled to
the temple's wealth. It's interesting to note that the Supreme Court has ordered state
governments to give over control of religious groups to the people in at least three major
decisions. It's interesting to note that the Supreme Court has ordered state governments to
give over control of religious groups to the people in at least three major decisions. However,
up until now, this hasn't been the case. The Supreme Court is now deliberating two petitions
concerning this issue. Prithviraj Chavan, a prominent Congress leader and former chief
minister of Maharashtra, recently stirred up controversy when he called for the government to
seize all of the gold held by national religious trusts, estimating that the amount was worth at
least $1 trillion. He says you may borrow gold at cheap interest rates by using gold bonds.
The term "all religious trusts" encompasses Sikh gurudwaras and Hindu and Jain temples,
both of which are exclusively accept gold as donations.

Vinod Bansal, national spokesperson for the VHP, asserts that discrimination on the basis of
religion is prohibited by the Indian Constitution. "But when it comes to the administration of
religious trusts, discrimination still exists." I believe that rectifying the mistakes committed
by the British and the Nehru administration in the past is crucial. He thought that religious
trusts belonging to Muslims and Christians should be treated similarly to those belonging to
Hindus. Since the "Trust is a legal body," it also has legitimate or appropriate legal
repercussions. Gold and other materials offered to gods are treasured as sacred objects.
Additionally, the gold monetization program is a scam, since no one has the legal right to
forfeit it under any circumstances.

Additionally, the gold monetization program is a scam, since no one has the legal right to
forfeit it under any circumstances. Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution bars any
plans to demolish places of worship. However, it is explicitly stated in the Constitution that
no one has the authority to impede on religious freedom. State management of the temples
had a big impact on how the Gold Monetization Schemes developed. Temples are compelled
by state governments to sell their gold even if they choose not to. The state's unconstitutional
and discriminatory control over temples is the root of this problem. The community loses out
on any proposal that does not repay the capital in gold. The reports state that local
governments are in control of most of the temples in South India.

These days, the Andhra Pradesh state government is in charge of roughly 34,000 temples. The
shrine's upkeep was funded by just 7% of the Rs. 3,500 crores in donations made to the
Tirupati Balaji temple. In the UK, a number of artifacts have been discovered for sale. One
Indian official said that India, a secular country, ought to treat Hindu temples in the same way
that it does mosques and churches. The British Government began to relinquish control over
the temples in 1840. Some of the most well-known temples and shrines in the state of Tamil
Nadu are represented by the most well-known mutts in the state.
 THE CASE OF KERALA

In Kerala, a state renowned for its progressive policies and religious peace, the administration
of these endowments is very important. The Hindu, Muslim, and Christian groups have made
major contributions to the state's long-standing religious endowments history. Undertaken
during British colonial rule and maintained after independence, government monitoring
works to guarantee the proper use of the significant financial resources and assets linked to
these endowments. Maintaining accountability, openness, and the appropriate use of
resources for the general good—such as upholding houses of worship, financing
humanitarian endeavors, and assisting educational establishments—requires this control.

Kerala has a rich tradition of religious endowments, with significant contributions from
Hindu, Muslim, and Christian communities. The state's endowment assets include well-
known temples like Sabarimala, Guruvayur, and Padmanabhaswamy, as well as numerous
mosques and churches with extensive properties and funds. Government oversight, initiated
during British colonial rule and continued post-independence, aims to ensure that the
substantial financial resources and properties associated with these endowments are used
appropriately. This oversight is essential to maintain transparency, accountability, and the
proper use of resources for public benefit, such as maintaining places of worship, funding
charitable activities, and supporting educational institutions.

In Kerala, the autonomy of religious institutions is a sensitive issue, with critics arguing that
government intervention infringes on their independence and can lead to bureaucratic
inefficiencies. The state's robust civil society often voices concerns about political
interference, where government control might be leveraged to further political agendas rather
than community welfare. Instances of bureaucratic red tape and delays are common, leading
to misallocation of resources and suboptimal utilization of funds. For example, the
administration of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages many Hindu temples,
has faced criticism for inefficiency and lack of transparency. Moreover, there is a risk that
endowment resources could be manipulated to garner support from specific religious
communities, leading to favouritism and bias. The administrative challenges in Kerala, like
elsewhere, include a lack of specialized knowledge and expertise among government
officials, which can hinder the effective management of endowments. Coordination between
different government bodies and religious institutions also presents significant hurdles,
exacerbating administrative inefficiencies.

Kerala's unique religious diversity requires tailored approaches to managing endowments

effectively. Here are some notable examples that illustrate the complexities and successes of
government control in the state:

1. Sabarimala Temple:

o Revenue and Management: The Sabarimala Temple, one of the most

significant pilgrimage sites in India, generates substantial revenue from
donations and offerings. Government control through the Travancore
Devaswom Board has been essential in ensuring that these funds are used for
infrastructure development, pilgrim amenities, and charitable activities. The
temple's administration has invested in improving facilities for pilgrims, such
as sanitation, accommodation, and medical services. However, controversies,
such as the debate over women's entry into the temple, have also highlighted
the challenges of balancing religious traditions with contemporary legal and
social norms.

2. Guruvayur Temple:

o Transparency and Community Welfare: The Guruvayur Temple, renowned

for its strict adherence to traditional rituals, has faced scrutiny over the use of
its considerable funds. Government oversight has played a crucial role in
auditing the temple’s finances and ensuring transparency. The administration
has focused on using the temple's revenue for community welfare projects,
such as educational scholarships, healthcare initiatives, and cultural
preservation programs. Despite these efforts, managing these funds effectively
to benefit the community while respecting religious sentiments remains a
delicate task.

3. Padmanabhaswamy Temple:

o Wealth and Legal Battles: The Padmanabhaswamy Temple in

Thiruvananthapuram is famous for its immense wealth, including vast
amounts of gold and precious stones discovered in its vaults. The management
of this wealth has been a contentious issue, with legal battles over the control
 and utilization of these assets. The Supreme Court of India has played a
significant role in overseeing the temple's administration, ensuring that the
wealth is safeguarded and used for public benefit. This case highlights the
importance of judicial oversight in the management of valuable religious
endowments.

4. Kerala Wakf Board:

o Challenges and Reforms: The Kerala Wakf Board oversees numerous

Muslim endowments, including mosques, madrasas, and charitable
institutions. The Board has faced challenges related to mismanagement and
corruption, prompting calls for reforms. Government intervention has been
critical in implementing measures to improve transparency and accountability.
Efforts have included digitizing records, conducting regular audits, and
enhancing community participation in decision-making processes.

Government control is justified, for the most part, but there are drawbacks and objections as
well. Religious organizations' autonomy is a contentious topic in Kerala, as some contend
that government interference violates their independence and can result in inefficient
bureaucracy. The vibrant civil society in the state frequently expresses worries about political
meddling, whereby government authority may be used to advance political goals rather than
the welfare of the people. There are frequent examples of bureaucratic red tape and delays,
which result in the inefficient use of finances and the misallocation of resources.
Furthermore, there's a chance that endowment funds will be misused to curry favor with
particular religious groups, which could result in bias and partiality. The administrative
challenges in Kerala, like elsewhere, include a lack of specialized knowledge and expertise
among government officials, which can hinder the effective management of endowments.
Coordination between different government bodies and religious institutions also presents
significant hurdles, exacerbating administrative inefficiencies.
 CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS

Government control of religious endowments can assist reduce potential disputes in a country
like India, where religion can occasionally be a cause of strife. By guaranteeing that
endowments are administered equitably and openly, the government can avert charges of
partiality or prejudice, which may spark conflict within the community. Oversight that is fair
and neutral can promote unity and a sense of confidence amongst various religious groupings.
Although there are strong arguments in favour of government control, there are drawbacks
and objections as well. Some contend that interference from the government can result in
bureaucratic inefficiencies and violates the autonomy of religious institutions. Concerns exist
regarding political meddling as well; whereby political agendas rather than the general
welfare of the community could be advanced through government control.

Government interference, according to critics, violates the independence of religious

organizations and can result in ineffective bureaucracy. Concerns exist regarding political
meddling as well; whereby political agendas rather than the general welfare of the
community could be advanced through government control. The misallocation of resources,
in which money and assets are not used as effectively as possible for the intended purposes,
can be caused by bureaucratic inefficiencies. Government oversight of religious endowments
carries the possibility of being exploited for political purposes. Endowment funds may be
manipulated by political parties in order to win over certain religious groups, which could
result in bias and partiality. Effective endowment administration can also be hampered by
administrative issues, such as government personnel' lack of specialized knowledge and
experience.

In conclusion, the need for government control over religious and charitable endowments in
Kerala is driven by a desire to ensure transparency, accountability, and the proper use of
resources for public benefit. While addressing the challenges and criticisms associated with
such control is crucial, the overall goal remains to safeguard these valuable endowments and
ensure they continue to serve the community effectively. A balanced approach, with adequate
checks and balances, can help achieve this objective, maintaining the integrity and purpose of
religious and charitable endowments in Kerala. Effective management and oversight are vital
to the continued service of these institutions to the community. Given Kerala's diverse
religious landscape, government control over religious endowments can help mitigate
potential conflicts by ensuring that endowments are managed fairly and transparently. This
impartial oversight can prevent accusations of favouritism or discrimination, fostering trust
and harmony among different religious communities and ensuring that the endowments fulfil
their intended social and economic roles.

In conclusion, the need for government control over religious and charitable endowments in
Kerala is driven by a desire to ensure transparency, accountability, and the proper use of
resources for public benefit. While addressing the challenges and criticisms associated with
such control is crucial, the overall goal remains to safeguard these valuable endowments and
ensure they continue to serve the community effectively. A balanced approach, with adequate
checks and balances, can help achieve this objective, maintaining the integrity and purpose of
religious and charitable endowments in Kerala. Effective management and oversight are vital
to the continued service of these institutions to the community.

The major objective is still to protect these priceless assets and make sure they continue to
benefit the society, even though it is crucial to address the difficulties and objections related
to such governance. Ensuring the integrity and purpose of religious and charitable
endowments in India can be achieved through the implementation of a balanced approach
that incorporates sufficient checks and balances. Ensuring that these institutions can continue
to effectively serve the community requires proper administration and monitoring.
Government control of religious endowments can assist reduce potential disputes in a country
like India, where religion can occasionally be a cause of strife.
 CONCLUSION

In India, Hinduism is most likely the oldest religion still practiced. It is supported by
extraordinarily ancient religious scriptures, conviction, and other factors. Traditions,
practices, and other things are to be upheld, unless the same is strictly limited to a certain
section of the Indian Constitution. Thus, while it is important to uphold stringent rights under
Article 25, it is equally important to take serious notice of financial irregularities and
malfeasance by any rigorous foundation for the greater good of sanctuary itself. The state
must strike a balance between respecting temple devotees and temple organizations in
accordance with the Indian Constitution.

The Act itself must be declared unlawful since it is nonsensical in several ways and is found
to be unfair in this application. As a result, the Act as a whole must be repealed. We also think
it is reasonable to conclude that the Legislature's objective is, on the whole, to create a single,
consistent rule that applies to all Hindu stringent foundations. If this is the case, as the
Supreme Court of Andhra Pradesh has done, the Government would be strongly encouraged
to form a commission to address sanctuary issues, with representation from all non-Hindu
strict pioneers, matadipathis, strict experts, social reformers, and other experts. From there,
the Commission would continue to pass uniform laws concerning the Supreme Court's ruling
in The Commissioner, Hindu, v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, The Government can
likewise consider having diverse administrative measures for temples/maths/Jains and so
forth, contingent on their strict conviction and so on, and obviously, inside the four corners of
the constitution.

Nevertheless, when it comes to this plan of a unified legal system for Hindu faiths, the
assembly has the authority to select the stringent reformative statute. We would delegate
authority to the Legislature to make a decision that is consistent with the Constitution. The
major objective is still to protect these priceless assets and make sure they continue to benefit
the society, even though it is crucial to address the difficulties and objections related to such
governance. Ensuring the integrity and purpose of religious and charitable endowments in
India can be achieved through the implementation of a balanced approach that incorporates
sufficient checks and balances.