NEW DELHI, MAY 10 : A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking directions to the Centre and state governments to constitute a judicial commission or expert committee to review wages and welfare benefits provided to priests, sevadars and temple staff working in state-controlled temples.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, also sought a declaration that priests and temple employees fall within the definition of “employee” under Section 2(k) of the Code on Wages, 2019.
The plea argued that once the State assumes administrative, financial and economic control over temples, an employer-employee relationship comes into existence, making it obligatory to ensure dignified wages and livelihood protections under Article 21 of the Constitution.
According to the petition, the issue came to the petitioner’s notice during a visit to Kashi Vishwanath Temple in April, where he allegedly found that priests and temple staff were not receiving wages sufficient for a dignified living.
The PIL further referred to recent protests by priests and temple workers in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over low salaries, claiming that many employees are paid less than the minimum wages prescribed for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. It termed the situation “systemic exploitation” and alleged that state authorities were failing to uphold labour welfare principles and constitutional directives.
The petition also cited a February 2025 circular issued at the Dandayuthapani Swami Temple in Tamil Nadu, which had reportedly barred priests from accepting ‘dakshina’ in ‘aarti plates’. The petitioner argued that many priests in state-managed temples depend largely on such offerings due to the absence of formal salaries. Although the circular was later withdrawn following public criticism, the plea claimed it exposed the financial vulnerability of temple staff.
The PIL additionally urged the court to direct governments to take appropriate welfare measures for priests, sevadars and temple workers in line with earlier observations made by the Allahabad High Court.
