Kerala HC Restrains Use of Temple Funds for Officials’ Travel to Global Ayyappa Sangamam

The Kerala High Court has temporarily halted an order allowing Malabar Devaswom Board officials to use temple funds for travel and food expenses to attend the Global Ayyappa Sangamam. The decision illuminates deeper debates about trust property, religious duties, and administrative accountability. Especially in smaller towns, where temples play both spiritual and social roles, this ruling could set precedents on what is acceptable use of religious funds.

What sparked the controversy
A Devaswom Commissioner’s recent order permitted Divisional Inspectors, Executive Officers, and other board employees from several temple divisions to use temple funds for attending the Ayyappa conclave. That includes travel, food, and vehicle expenses. The decision prompted a clerk from a temple in Kasaragod to challenge it, arguing that these funds are meant for worship and charity, not for administrative or official perks.

Temple funds and trust obligations
In Indian law, temple funds are considered trust property—managed by boards or trusts on behalf of the deity and devotees. The legal argument brought by petitioners is that diverting these funds for official expenses violates the fiduciary duty of those managing the temple. Especially in smaller temples, financial shortages are common. Funds are often stretched thin for staff salaries, maintenance, rituals, and basic services.

Court’s interim action
The High Court issued an interim stay on the Commissioner’s order and has asked the Malabar Devaswom Board and state government to respond. The stay applies pending further hearings. The court is considering if directing temples to bear such expenses is lawful, reasonable, or an overreach.

Potential implications for Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities
In smaller towns, many temples are central institutions—not just religious spaces but community hubs. If use of temple funds for non-ritual or non-charitable expenses becomes accepted practice, it could divert scarce resources from essential temple functions. Devotees and local citizens may begin questioning how funds are utilized, which could erode trust if transparency is lacking.

Balancing duties and costs
On the other side, proponents of the original order argue that attending events like the Sangamam may contribute to temple welfare in broader terms—through exposure, networking, higher visibility, or even donor interest. But critics say that such indirect benefits don’t justify using money meant for direct worship, upkeep, or services for devotees—especially when financial conditions are tight.

What to watch from here
The upcoming court hearings will likely clarify: whether temple trust laws allow use of funds for such purposes; how to define “official duty” vs “personal attendance”; whether travel by officials serving in volunteer capacities is permissible; and what guidelines, if any, should exist for transparency in spending.

Conclusion
This case isn’t just about a single order—it’s about the boundaries of temple funding and the responsibility of trustees. For people in Tier-2 cities, the outcome could affect how temple institutions operate, how accountable they are, and how funds meant for worship are protected. What this really means is that transparency, law, and devotion must go hand in hand to maintain trust in religious institutions.