Reimagining Temple Governance: The Shastrartha (Shastrarth) Way

Incorporating Shastrartha (Shastrarth) into temple governance can enhance transparency, strengthen accountability, and help prevent theft, misappropriation of funds, and other irregularities.

 Siddheshwar Shukla

The unfortunate incident of theft of crores of rupees from the donation boxes of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya has left millions of devotees in India and abroad shocked, hurt, and deeply concerned. Following allegations of mismanagement and inaction, Champat Rai, General Secretary of the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra (SRJTK) Trust, and trustee Anil Misra have resigned, while some employees have been arrested and several others are currently under investigation.

However, this is neither the first nor the last incident of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds at Hindu temples. While devotees were grieving and cursing those at the helm of affairs at the SRJTK Trust, news of alleged theft and misappropriation of funds emerged from Badrinath temple in Uttarakhand. Meanwhile, based on the interim report of the SIT investigation into the alleged misappropriation of 4.5 kg of gold in the gold-plating project at Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple, the Kerala High Court …allowed the registration of FIRs against former Chairman of the Travancore Devaswom Board, Mr. P. S. Prashant, and others.

Returning to the Wisdom of Shastrartha

In January 2026, a CBI-led SIT report alleged the misappropriation of about ₹240 crore of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) funds in Andhra Pradesh in the adulterated laddu case. Theft, corruption, financial irregularities, adulteration of Prasadam, governance failures leading to stampedes, and the traffic loss of devotees’ lives have repeatedly plagued temple administration in India since Independence. Yet, there seems to be little evidence of meaningful or innovative institutional reforms to prevent their recurrence.

There is a famous adage – “When in doubt, go to the basics”. Sanatan culture offers an age-old participatory process of debate, discussion, deliberation, dialogue, and …consensus-based decision-making known as Shastrartha. For centuries, the doors of temples, and other Hindu religious institutions were always open for questioning on all issues through Shastrartha. It was this unfettered culture of questioning and transparency that enabled a monk from the far south, Adi Shankaracharya, to engage with leading scholars and philosophers across the Indian subcontinent.  Through Shastrartha, he brought diverse philosophical schools and sects of Sanatana Dharma into a unified philosophical framework and laid down a robust code for the governance and management of mathas (peethas), temples and other religious institutions.

Shastrartha: A Timeless Blueprint for Temple Governance

Today, however, power is often centralized in the hands of a single individual, a small group, or a family, leaving little room for questions and, at times, even silencing the questioner. This concentration of authority fosters unchecked greed, weakens accountability and leads to neglect of the life-threatening problems of devotees. The consequences are corruption, entrenched syndicates and vested interests, mismanagement, inconvenience and hardship for devotees, and, in the worst cases, the loss of money, valuables**, and the lives of devotees.

These loopholes in the governance and management of temples can be efficiently and effectively addressed through the principles of Shastrartha. Their possible Shastrartha-based solutions may be understood under the following themes:

Concentration of Power

The major issue emerging from the Ayodhya incident is the excessive concentration of power. When policy-making, administrative decisions, appointments and daily operations become confined to a few individuals, institutional balance begins to weaken. The spirit of Shastrartha stands in contrast to such monopoly. The Rigveda proclamation – “May noble thoughts come to us from all directions” (Rigveda, 1.89.1) encourages openness to constructive ideas. Rather than accepting the final word of a single individual, Shastrartha values multiple perspectives, collective reflection, and reasoned deliberations. If important temple decisions are taken through dialogical, participatory, and multi-stakeholder consultations based on the framework of Shastrartha, they are likely to become more balanced, accountable, robust and sustainable.

Lack of Accountability and Effective Oversight Mechanism

Good intentions alone are insufficient for the effective functioning of any institution; procedural accountability and independent scrutiny are equally essential. One of the fundamental principles of Shastrartha is that every claim must be examined on the basis of evidence, reasoning, and objective testing. Rigveda (10.71.2) teaches that just as people sift grain to remove impurities, they must also critically examine ideas and information. Temple authorities can reduce irregularities by institutionalising periodic independent reviews, financial audits, question-and-answer sessions, and reasoned scrutiny of decisions.

Arbitrary Appointments  

When appointments or the engagement of professionals, service providers and suppliers are based on personal recommendations rather than transparent and reasonable criteria, merit and competitive processes, personal loyalties tend to overshadow institutional commitment. Under such circumstances, vested interest groups and lobbies often emerge and seek to conceal one another’s irregularities, theft, misappropriation, and corrupt practices. Consequently, the temple’s sanctity, reputation, and original purpose become secondary, while shielding the faults and misconduct of members of such groups becomes top priority.

Shastrartha advocates a principle-centered rather than a person-centric system. It upholds democratic values, the primacy of knowledge, integrity, and duty-consciousness by prioritizing evidence-based, logical, and empirically grounded deliberations, thereby enabling practical, informed, and actionable decisions.

Neglect of Questions, Dissent, and Warnings

The Rigveda considers those who are unreceptive to questioning, deliberation, and dialogue as harmful to society. Its message is that individuals should welcome opportunities for questioning, reasoned discussion, and dialogue even in difficult circumstances (Rigveda, 8.101.4). Many institutional failures occur not because warning signs are absent, but because institutions fail to investigate available signals and concerns in time. According to media reports, some members of the SRJTK Trust and the late Chief Priest, Acharya Satyendra Das, raised concerns and expressed dissent on several occasions. However, the Trust did not treat those concerns with adequate seriousness. The essence of Shastrartha lies in respecting questions, counter-questions, and dissent. Such an approach can help identify and address potential crises at an early stage.

Building a Culture of Accountability

Besides, culture of Shastrartha in temples would contribute to the capacity building of youths interested in temple administration. It would equip them with the rigorous knowledge, skills, ethical orientation, sensitivity for devotees, vision and practical competence required for the efficient management and operation of temples and their associated activities in the best interest of the deity, devotees, and other stakeholders. Such an approach would gradually create a committed cadre of temple administrators capable of assuming responsibility for temple governance independently, thereby reducing reliance on government control. Rooted in evidence-based, participatory, and accountable decision-making, such a cadre would be able to ensure that administration of every big and small temple remains efficient and effective.

Moreover, this would establish a living model of temple governance and administration in which any concerned stakeholder could question decisions, identify deficiencies, and participate in constructive deliberation. Continuous scrutiny and timely corrective action can identify institutional weaknesses before they become crises. This approach fosters transparency, accountability, and long-term institutional resilience.

Siddheshwar Shukla is a former Fellow at Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and
Communication (MCU), Bhopal. He is the author of  Shastrartha in India: Methodology and Applications.