TOPIC 38

STATE FUNDING OF PILGRIMAGE AND RELIGIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE

Balancing Secular Governance with Religious Expenditure

---

On a warm April morning in 2025, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee stood before a Mahayagna in Digha, offering oblations as the chief Yajman — the ritual patron — at the consecration of a newly built Jagannath Temple. The 22-acre complex, modelled on Puri’s famed shrine, had been funded entirely by the state government to the tune of Rs 250 crore. Not a single rupee came from voluntary religious donations. The official document described it as “Jagannath Dham Sanskriti Kendra,” but the website made no pretence: it was a temple. A fully functional Hindu temple, built by a secular government in a pluralistic democracy .

Just four months later, in August 2025, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Union Home Minister Amit Shah stood together in Sitamarhi, performing bhoomi pujan for a grand Sita temple at Punaura Dham, believed to be the goddess’s birthplace. The Bihar government had acquired 50 acres of land for Rs 165.57 crore and earmarked Rs 882.87 crore for the project. Both leaders acted as chief yajmans while holding public office .

These events represent perhaps the most significant shift in India’s secular practice since Independence: the direct, state-funded construction of Hindu temples. The Jagannath Dham project is “likely a first in independent India’s secular history: a state government directly funding, constructing, and consecrating a Hindu temple” — going “a step ahead of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, a project driven by the BJP and Sangh Parivar but financed through private donations” .

Yet defenders of such expenditure point to a different history. Between 2004 and 2014, under the UPA government, the Haj subsidy amounted to Rs 6,560 crore — averaging Rs 655 crore per year. From 2014 to 2017, an additional Rs 1,137 crore was spent, bringing the 13-year total to Rs 7,697 crore . Supporters of Hindu pilgrimage funding argue that the majority community has been “treated like second-grade citizens” while minority pilgrimages received substantial state support .

This article examines the constitutional and political debates surrounding state funding of pilgrimage and religious infrastructure in India. It explores the legal framework governing such expenditure, the major cases of state-funded religious projects across parties, the economic arguments for “religious tourism” as development, and the fundamental question of what secularism means when the state builds temples.

WHAT – State funding of pilgrimage and religious infrastructure refers to government expenditure on the construction, renovation, and maintenance of religious sites (temples, mosques, churches, gurdwaras), as well as subsidies and logistical support for religious pilgrimages (Haj, Amarnath Yatra, Char Dham Yatra, Kumbh Mela). This includes direct budget allocations, indirect subsidies (transport, security, accommodation), and infrastructure development (roads, ghats, sewage systems) at religious sites.

WHO – State governments (BJP-ruled and non-BJP-ruled alike) have funded religious projects — West Bengal’s TMC government built Jagannath Dham, Bihar’s JD(U)-BJP coalition is building the Sita temple, Uttarakhand’s BJP government has overseen the Char Dham redevelopment. The central government has funded both the Haj subsidy (phased out in 2018) and massive Kumbh Mela infrastructure. The Supreme Court adjudicates constitutional challenges to religious funding, with recent rulings on secularism and state-sponsored events.

WHEN – The debate has intensified between 2014 and 2026, with major developments including the Char Dham redevelopment (ongoing since 2014), the Maha Kumbh 2025 (Rs 15,000 crore budget), the Jagannath Dham consecration (April 2025), the Sita temple groundbreaking (August 2025), and the Supreme Court’s Dasara ruling (September 2025).

WHERE – Across India, with significant state-funded religious projects in Uttar Pradesh (Kumbh Mela, Ayodhya), Uttarakhand (Char Dham), West Bengal (Jagannath Dham), Bihar (Sita Temple), and various other states with temple renovation and pilgrimage infrastructure.

WHY – Governments justify religious expenditure on multiple grounds: cultural preservation (protecting India’s civilizational heritage), economic development (religious tourism generates revenue and employment), logistical necessity (managing crowds at massive pilgrimages is a state responsibility), and political messaging (demonstrating commitment to the faith of the majority or minority communities). Critics argue such expenditure violates constitutional secularism, creates unequal treatment of religions, and represents vote-buying through public funds.

HOW – Through direct budget allocations for construction; through central and state schemes like the Pilgrimage Rejuvenation and Spiritual Augmentation Drive (PRASAD); through infrastructure spending justified as “tourism development”; through subsidies for air and rail travel to pilgrimage sites; and through provision of security, transport, and accommodation for pilgrims.

---

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK — WHAT DOES SECULARISM PROHIBIT?

Article 27: The Prohibition on Religious Funding

The most direct constitutional provision on state funding of religion is Article 27, which states: “No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.”

This article prohibits the government from using tax revenues specifically and directly to promote any particular religion. The key words are “specifically appropriated” — the provision does not ban all state interaction with religion, but it does bar the state from levying taxes whose explicit purpose is religious promotion .

Critics of state-funded temples argue that projects like Jagannath Dham and the Sita temple violate Article 27 directly. The Jagannath Dham project “blatantly violates Article 27 of the Constitution, which forbids the use of public funds to promote religion,” one analysis noted. “As Chief Minister of a state in the secular republic of India, Banerjee has overseen the allocation of taxpayer money to religious rituals, from Vedic yajnas to idol pran Pratishtha” .

The Supreme Court’s Secularism Doctrine

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that secularism is a “basic feature” of the Constitution, established in landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati and S.R. Bommai . However, the Court has also recognized that Indian secularism is not “puritanical” — it acknowledges and respects religiosity .

In September 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on state-sponsored religious events. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed a petition seeking to block Booker Prize-winning author Banu Mushtaq, a Muslim, from inaugurating the Mysuru Dasara festivities at the Chamundeshwari temple.

The Court delivered a sharp lesson on constitutional values, with Justice Nath pointedly asking the petitioner if he had read the Preamble of the Constitution. The bench emphasized that the Dasara celebration is a “state-sponsored event,” not a private religious programme. “The State cannot distinguish between A, B or C religion,” Justice Nath stated, affirming that the government must remain neutral and cannot discriminate based on faith .

This ruling establishes an important principle: when the state organizes or sponsors a religious event, it cannot exclude citizens on religious grounds. However, it does not directly address whether the state should be organizing such events at all.

The Distinction Between “Facilitation” and “Promotion”

Scholars of Indian constitutional law distinguish between the state’s role in facilitating religious practice and its role in actively promoting religion. The state may provide logistical support for pilgrimages — transportation, security, temporary shelter, road repairs — as part of its duty to maintain public order when religion enters the public sphere. However, the state is not to go beyond this .

This distinction is often blurred in practice. The Kumbh Mela budget of Rs 15,000 crore includes permanent infrastructure — airport terminals, national highways, bridges, sewage management — that serves general public purposes. The government argues that 75% of this expenditure is on permanent infrastructure, not religious facilities . Critics argue that this infrastructure is exclusively located at religious sites and primarily serves pilgrims, making the religious purpose undeniable.

---

STATE-FUNDED TEMPLES — A NEW PHENOMENON?

Mamata Banerjee’s Jagannath Dham (West Bengal)

The Jagannath Dham in Digha represents a watershed moment in India’s secular practice. Completed in April 2025 at a cost of Rs 250 crore from the West Bengal government’s treasury, it is believed to be “the first time a state government in independent India has directly funded, constructed, and consecrated a Hindu temple” .

Mamata Banerjee’s role went beyond funding. She acted as the “chief Yajman, the ritual patron, overseeing rites that culminated in the Pran Pratishtha of the deity” . The parallels with Prime Minister Modi’s role at the Ayodhya Ram temple consecration were noted by observers: “Both ceremonies are framed around electoral calendars, both claim to bring economic development through pilgrimage tourism, and both anoint their architects as divine intermediaries” .

The timing — ahead of state elections — led critics to describe it as a “calculated shift to counter the BJP’s inroads into Bengal’s Hindu electorate.” The Trinamool Congress, critics argue, is “countering saffron with saffron lite” .

Nitish Kumar’s Sita Temple (Bihar)

In August 2025, the Bihar government initiated the construction of a grand Sita temple at Punaura Dham in Sitamarhi, believed to be the birthplace of the goddess Sita. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Union Home Minister Amit Shah participated in the bhoomi pujan, both acting as chief yajmans .

The scale of state involvement is remarkable. The Bihar government has acquired 50 acres of land for Rs 165.57 crore and has earmarked Rs 882.87 crore for the project. The state ran full-page advertisements in nearly every newspaper for at least three days announcing its plans .

The constitutional question posed by this project is stark: “Can a secular state extend such unambiguous patronage to one particular religion?” . The author notes that while no one objected to Amit Shah or Nitish Kumar attending the event in a personal capacity, “how can they act as chief yajmans while holding public office?”

The Ram Temple: A Different Model

The Ayodhya Ram Temple is often cited as a precedent for state-funded temples, but there is a crucial distinction: the Ram Temple was not directly funded by the state. The Supreme Court awarded the site for temple construction and directed the central government to form a trust, but “state funds were not used” . The construction was financed through private donations collected by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.

Even then, critics note that “the credit for the temple was claimed by the BJP. The Prime Minister was thanked for the court’s verdict. At the inauguration, he played the role of the principal yajman. The temple’s consecration was converted into a state event, rightly criticised as not only the inauguration of a temple, but the symbolic inauguration of a Hindu Rashtra” .

The Jagannath Dham and Sita Temple projects go further, using direct state funds for construction — something the Ram Temple did not do.

---

PILGRIMAGE INFRASTRUCTURE — THE KUMBH AND CHAR DHAM MODELS

Maha Kumbh 2025: A Rs 15,000 Crore Spectacle

The Maha Kumbh Mela in Prayagraj (January-February 2025) represents the most extensive state investment in a religious event in Indian history. The Uttar Pradesh government, led by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, allocated a budget of Rs 15,000 crore — a staggering increase from the Rs 1,200 crore budget in 2013 under the previous government .

The government defends this expenditure on four grounds:

First, 75% of the expenditure is on permanent infrastructure — airport terminals, national highways, new internal roads, permanent ghats, sewage management, solid waste management, street lighting, murals, and beautification. This infrastructure serves the city long after the Kumbh ends .

Second, the investment is expected to generate an economy of Rs 2-3 lakh crore — 80-100 times the investment on Mela facilities. A Banaras Hindu University study estimates that a pilgrim spends a minimum of Rs 4,000-5,000 from door to door .

Third, the temporary facilities — 10,000 camps set up by Akharas and religious organizations — are funded by those organizations themselves. The government only provides land, water, and electricity .

Fourth, the state has a logistical responsibility for crowd management. With an estimated 40-50 crore devotees expected — more than the population of the United States — the government must ensure safety, security, and sanitation .

But the Kumbh was not without tragedy. On the night of January 28-29, 2025, a massive stampede occurred during Mauni Amavasya, one of Hinduism’s holiest days. Official figures put the death toll at 30, but eyewitnesses and media investigations suggest the number could be much higher — one survivor estimated at least 200 deaths . Chief Minister Adityanath called it a “minor incident” but announced Rs 25 lakh ex-gratia for the kin of the deceased. He later explained: “We did not allow the incident to be excessively highlighted as panic could have worsened the situation” .

Char Dham Redevelopment: Development or Disaster?

The Char Dham project — redeveloping the pilgrimage sites of Kedarnath, Badrinath, Gangotri, and Yamunotri in Uttarakhand — has been described as “Prime Minister Modi’s personal projects” . A Rs 2,000 crore contract was handed to an Ahmedabad-based architectural firm.

The first phase of Kedarnath’s reconstruction involved building a 70-foot-wide concrete road, an 850-foot long three-tier retaining wall along the Saraswati river, and a 350-foot protective cover along the Mandakini .

But critics argue that the “development paradigm” has been “catastrophic.” Environmentalists warn that heavy machinery and extensive cutting of mountainsides are accelerating subsidence. “Badrinath town is located on glacial moraine, which is loose and unsettled. The monsoon only serves to worsen the situation,” a geologist warned .

Local residents have raised multiple objections. The 3,000 priests who conduct rituals at Kedarnath opposed the decision to gold-plate the walls of the sanctum sanctorum, arguing that the original silver was more in keeping with the ascetic Lord Shiva. Their objections were overruled, and the gold-plating was done just one day before the temple doors were closed in 2022 — so most priests “did not get a chance to see what was being done” .

Shopkeepers in Badrinath complain of demolition without notice. “Why weren’t shopkeepers like him given prior notice? Why weren’t they let in on the master plan, instead of being bulldozed this way?” .

A senior priest noted that “pilgrim centres are open to rich and poor alike. But today, the older dharamshalas, which provided clean and inexpensive lodging for visiting pilgrims, are being torn down and replaced with five-storey hotels that charge [up to] Rs 20,000 per night” .

---

THE HAJ SUBSIDY — A PRECEDENT FOR RELIGIOUS FUNDING

Any discussion of state funding for Hindu pilgrimages must contend with the historical precedent of the Haj subsidy. Between 2004 and 2014, under the UPA government, the Haj subsidy amounted to Rs 6,560 crore. Between 2014 and 2017, under the NDA government, an additional Rs 1,137 crore was spent . A detailed RTI query revealed that the Haj subsidy amounts disbursed by the Government of India from 1994 to 2017 included: Rs 836.56 crore in 2012, Rs 680.03 crore in 2013, Rs 577.07 crore in 2014, and Rs 200 crore budgeted in 2017 .

The government phased out the Haj subsidy in 2018. However, supporters of Hindu pilgrimage funding argue that for decades, state resources were disproportionately used in favour of one religious group. Social commentator Prafful Sarda questioned: “For years, the majority population in this country has been treated like second-grade citizens. When will they receive equal treatment? Will the government ever allocate the same level of funding for the Amarnath and Char Dham Yatras as it does for schemes benefiting the largest minority?” .

This argument — that Hindu pilgrimages deserve equal funding because Muslim pilgrimages received funding in the past — has become central to the political defence of state-funded Hindu religious infrastructure.

Critics of this argument note several distinctions. First, the Haj subsidy was primarily an airfare subsidy for pilgrims travelling to Saudi Arabia, not the construction of mosques in India. Second, the subsidy was phased out in 2018, while Hindu temple construction has accelerated since then. Third, the subsidy was extended to Indian citizens of all religions travelling to international pilgrimage sites, including Christians travelling to Jerusalem — it was not exclusively for Muslims.

---

THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT — RELIGIOUS TOURISM AS DEVELOPMENT

The “Darshan Meets Development” Framework

The most sophisticated defence of state funding for religious infrastructure is economic: religious tourism generates revenue, creates employment, and stimulates local economies. The Ministry of Tourism claims, “In this new Bharat, tourism isn’t seasonal — it is civilizational. It is where darshan meets development, where pilgrimage meets progress, and where festivals meet infrastructure” .

The Kumbh Mela is the primary exhibit for this argument. The government claims that religious tourism alone earned around $56 billion in 2024 . The 2019 Kumbh, with a government spend of Rs 4,000 crore, generated an economy of over Rs 1 lakh crore, according to a CII report .

The PRASAD Scheme

The central government’s Pilgrimage Rejuvenation and Spiritual Augmentation Drive (PRASAD) scheme funds infrastructure development at pilgrimage sites across religions. Under this scheme, a solid-waste incinerator was installed inside the Gangotri National Park at a cost of Rs 3.1 crore to dispose of organic waste generated by the 800,000 pilgrims who visit Gangotri annually .

However, environmentalists have raised concerns about the activation of this incinerator, noting that the Gangotri National Park is located near a glacier and falls within the Bhagirathi Eco Sensitive Zone .

The Problem of “Religious Tourism” as Justification

Critics argue that the “religious tourism” framework is a “convenient fabrication” that repackages state participation in religious activity as secular. “The devotee earns spiritual merit, and the state earns money: a win-win, apparently. But would the state demonstrate the same generosity during Eid or Bakrid? Does it do so?” .

The Bihar government’s transport subsidy — announced specifically for Durga Puja, Diwali, Chhath, and Holi — is cited as an example of selective generosity. “Why is public money being used exclusively to support Hindu festivals?” .

---

THE POLITICAL DIMENSION — SECULARISM AS ELECTORAL STRATEGY

The Congress-BJP-RSS Triangle

The politicization of religious funding has transcended party lines. The author of the Frontline analysis notes that “India’s political landscape is now so deeply suffused with Hindutva that even self-professed secular parties lack the courage to ask these questions. More troubling still is the public indifference. As a society, we no longer find these questions necessary” .

The TMC’s shift is particularly striking. Once positioned as a defender of secularism against the BJP, Mamata Banerjee’s “recent embrace of Ram Navami celebrations, patronisation of a ‘planted’-Kumbh in Hooghly, initiation of Ganga Aarti, and now Jagannath Dham echoes a calculated shift to counter the BJP’s inroads into Bengal’s Hindu electorate” .

The “Anti-Hindu” Counter-Narrative

A notable feature of contemporary politics is the opposition’s willingness to accuse the BJP of being “anti-Hindu” when the government’s actions alienate religious sentiment. During the Magh Mela controversy in January 2026, the Congress and Samajwadi Party supported Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand against the Yogi Adityanath government, accusing the state of being “anti-Hindu.” This suggests that Hindu religious sentiment is not a monopoly of any single party, and that the politics of religious funding carries risks for the incumbent as well.

The Karnataka Minority Colonies Controversy

In May 2026, the Karnataka cabinet approved a Rs 600 crore action plan for the development of “minority colonies” across the state. BJP MP Tejasvi Surya questioned the constitutional validity of the plan, asking: “Under which constitutional provision can public money be earmarked exclusively for ‘minority colonies’ based on religion rather than for all poor and deprived localities based on objective socio-economic criteria?” .

Surya argued that the plan could contradict Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution: “Individuals may have a religion — but since when did roads, drains, streets, and neighbourhoods acquire a religion? On what constitutional basis is the government assigning religious identity to geographies as ‘minority colonies’ and then distributing public money accordingly?” .

This controversy illustrates the asymmetry in the debate: the same BJP that criticizes religion-specific development schemes for minorities defends state-funded Hindu temples. The TMC, which accuses the BJP of communal politics, funds temple construction when it suits electoral calculations.

---

THE SUPREME COURT’S ROLE — DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES

The Dasara Ruling: State Events Must Be Inclusive

The Supreme Court’s September 2025 ruling on the Mysuru Dasara festival established an important principle: when the state organizes or sponsors a religious event, it cannot discriminate on religious grounds. The Court rejected the argument that a Muslim could not inaugurate a Hindu temple festival, holding that “this is a state-organised programme” and “the State cannot distinguish between A, B or C religion” .

This ruling suggests that if the state chooses to fund religious events or infrastructure, it must do so in a manner that is inclusive and non-discriminatory. However, the ruling does not answer the prior question: should the state be organizing such events at all?

The Missing Verdict on Temple Construction

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled directly on the constitutionality of state-funded temple construction. The constitutional challenge to the Places of Worship Act — which could affect the legal framework for religious site disputes — is pending. But no major petition has directly challenged the Jagannath Dham or Sita Temple projects under Article 27.

This judicial silence has allowed state governments to proceed with religious construction projects without fear of constitutional intervention. As one observer noted, “the media, silenced by advertisement revenue and its growing alignment with the BJP and the State government, has abdicated its responsibility” to ask the fundamental questions .

---

VARIETIES OF STATE-RELIGION ENGAGEMENT

Not all state funding of religion is equal. A spectrum of engagement exists, from constitutionally unobjectionable to clearly problematic.

Constitutionally Permissible (Facilitation): Providing security, transport, and basic amenities for pilgrims; maintaining law and order during religious processions; building roads to pilgrimage sites as part of general infrastructure development.

Grey Area (Cultural Preservation): Renovating ancient temples that are also archaeological sites; preserving religious heritage as part of national culture; funding the Kumbh Mela’s temporary infrastructure while 75% of expenditure is on permanent public infrastructure.

Constitutionally Questionable (Promotion): Directly constructing new temples using state funds; government officials acting as chief yajmans in religious ceremonies; running advertisements inviting people to perform Hindu rituals; providing transport subsidies exclusively for Hindu festivals.

Clearly Unconstitutional (Endorsement): Using tax revenues specifically appropriated for religious purposes; compelling citizens to participate in religious activities; discriminating against citizens on religious grounds in state-sponsored events.

The Jagannath Dham and Sita Temple projects fall into the “constitutionally questionable” category at minimum. The involvement of Chief Ministers as ritual patrons pushes them toward the “clearly unconstitutional” end of the spectrum.

---

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE — RELIGIOUS FUNDING IN OTHER DEMOCRACIES

India’s current trajectory is unique among major democracies: direct state funding of temple construction by governments across party lines, accompanied by the phased withdrawal of funding for minority pilgrimages, with minimal judicial or public scrutiny.

---

THE CENTRAL QUESTION — CAN THE STATE BUILD A TEMPLE?

The question posed by the Frontline analysis is stark: “Can the Indian state build a temple or a mosque? Perhaps the question needs to be reframed. In the present context, imagining the state building a mosque appears absurd” .

The asymmetry is undeniable. The same state that demolishes mazars in Uttarakhand under the rubric of “land jihad” builds temples in West Bengal and Bihar. The same politicians who criticized the Haj subsidy as “appeasement” preside over the consecration of state-funded temples.

The constitutional answer to the question “Can the state build a temple?” is unambiguous: No. India is a secular republic. It cannot promote or patronize any one religion. It cannot engage directly in religious activity .

But the political answer is different. As one observer noted, “No one now reminds us that, in the early years of Independence, Mahatma Gandhi had opposed the use of public funds for the renovation of the Somnath temple. Prime Minister Nehru had even objected to President Rajendra Prasad attending the temple inauguration” .

Those objections have been forgotten. The political class — across parties — has discovered that religious funding wins votes. The TMC builds temples to compete with the BJP. The BJP builds temples to consolidate its Hindu base. The Congress, too, has participated in religious symbolism when politically convenient.

The only remaining constraint is constitutional. And the courts have not yet spoken.

The Unanswered Question

The central question of this topic — whether state funding of pilgrimage and religious infrastructure can be balanced with secular governance — remains unresolved because the constitutional framework has not been tested. The Supreme Court’s Dasara ruling suggests that when the state does engage with religion, it must do so inclusively. But it has not ruled that the state should not engage with religion at all.

Until the Court addresses Article 27 directly in the context of state-funded temple construction, the political practice will continue: governments will fund temples, defend them as “cultural” or “economic” projects, and dare critics to challenge them.

The Jagannath Dham project, the Sita Temple, the Kumbh Mela’s Rs 15,000 crore budget, the Char Dham redevelopment — these are not isolated aberrations. They are the new normal. Whether that normal violates the Constitution is a question for the courts. Whether it violates the spirit of Indian secularism is a question for the people.

---

KEY STATE-FUNDED RELIGIOUS PROJECTS