On April 21, 2023, the Central government of India, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, informed the Supreme Court that it does not support government control over temples, advocating for religious autonomy. This statement was made before a nine-judge Constitution Bench examining the state's authority under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, particularly in light of ongoing discussions surrounding the Sabarimala temple review petitions. The government's position emphasizes a strict separation between secular management and religious autonomy, asserting that while Article 25(2) allows for state regulation of secular aspects, it should not lead to permanent state control of religious institutions. The Supreme Court raised concerns about the risks of granting denominations absolute power, warning that it could lead to societal division and undermine the inclusive spirit of Hinduism. The court has previously ruled that temple funds belong to the deity and should not be diverted for unrelated purposes. The debate is intensified by the extensive state involvement in temple administration across various Indian states, such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Proponents of government oversight argue it ensures accountability and prevents the misappropriation of funds, while critics contend that it is discriminatory and inefficient compared to the self-management of other religious institutions. Possible solutions include creating independent trusts for temple management and establishing local councils for community input in religious practices.