Telangana High Court issues notices in Yadagirigutta trust case
The Telangana High Court issued notices in a petition challenging the Yadagirigutta temple Board of Trustees and granted the State government a final opportunity to place complete facts on record in petitions concerning the long-pending revision of minimum wages
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the respondents in a writ petition challenging the constitution of the Board of Trustees of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, and directed them to file their counters.
The writ petition challenges Sections 96 and 97 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, as amended by Act No. 11 of 2025, along with G.O.Rt. No. 392 dated June 30, 2026, constituting the Board of Trustees of the Yadagirigutta temple. Counsel for the petitioner, Mayur Mundra, contended that the amendments reduce the Founder Trustee to the status of a mere member, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and are violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The petitioner further contended that the impugned provisions permit government-appointed Boards to exercise control over religious affairs, rituals and temple administration, thereby infringing on the autonomy of Hindu religious institutions and undermining the statutory recognition accorded to Founder Trustees. The petition also questioned the appointment of the Chairman of the Board under the impugned Government Order without giving due consideration to the Founder Trustee’s statutory position.
Govt told to place facts on minimum wages
Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday granted a final opportunity to the State government to place the complete facts on record in a batch of petitions challenging the long-pending revision of minimum wages, making it clear that no further extension would be granted.
The batch of writ petitions was filed by various workers’ organisations alleging that minimum wages in several scheduled employments had not been revised for nearly two decades. The petitioners contended that the government’s recent exercise would result in a reduction in wage benefits and adversely affect workers.
Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that despite the Court’s earlier order dated July 28, the State had failed to explain the consequences of not issuing final notifications under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, before the Code on Wages, 2019 came into force on November 21, 2025. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that workers had continued to receive minimum wages along with Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA), which was revised every six months based on the cost-of-living index.
A Joint Commissioner of Labour was also present before the Court to assist the Special Government Pleader. The State further informed the Bench that a fresh notification revising minimum wages had been issued on May 30, 2026, and brought into force with effect from June 1, 2026.
Taking note of the rival submissions, the Division Bench observed that oral submissions alone were insufficient to decide the issue and directed the State government to file a detailed affidavit explaining whether the VDA paid over the years substantially matched the revised wage levels that ought to have been implemented during the disputed period. The Court also directed the State to place all relevant notifications, records and legal explanations on record and adjourned the matter to August 20, making it clear that no further time would be granted.
