Why did the Supreme Court refuse to entertain the plea seeking minimum wage for temple priests?

NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court bench has declined to entertain a plea seeking directions on wages, employee status, and welfare benefits for priests and temple staff working in State-controlled temples across the country, as per a report by Bar and Bench.A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta declined to intervene in the matter after hearing advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who filed the plea. The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), leaving them free to approach the appropriate authorities instead."Mandiron ke pujari ke chakkar mein matt padiye, do you know how much temple priests earn? We are not entertaining this," the court said.What did the PIL demanded for priests and why the court walked awayThe petition sought directions to the Centre and State governments to constitute a judicial commission or an expert committee to review the wages, service conditions, and welfare benefits of priests, sevadars, and temple staff employed in temples administered by State governments.The plea further asked the court to declare temple priests and staff as "employees" under the Code on Wages, 2019, which would make them eligible for statutory minimum wages and labour protections.The petitioner argued that several State governments exercise administrative and financial control over Hindu temples through endowment departments and temple boards. Therefore, according to the plea, an employer-employee relationship exists between temple authorities and the priests.The petition claimed that many temple priests and workers receive meagre salaries or survive entirely on offerings and honorariums rather than fixed wages."Priests and temple staff are not getting even the minimum wage prescribed by the State for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. This is a systemic exploitation," the petition said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.The plea described the situation as "systemic exploitation," arguing that temple workers in many States remain economically vulnerable despite temples being under government administration.The petition also raised constitutional arguments, claiming that denial of fair wages and social security violates the fundamental right under the Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which deal with equality before the law and equal protection of laws, and the right to life with dignity.One of the central arguments raised by Upadhyay was that Hindu temples in several States are subject to government oversight, unlike mosques and churches.The plea contended that once the State assumes administrative and financial control over temple institutions, it must also ensure labour welfare protections for those who are working there.The Supreme Court was not inclined to examine the issue through a PIL. After the Bench expressed its unwillingness to entertain the matter, Upadhyay requested permission to withdraw the plea and pursue the matter before relevant authorities instead."Allow me to withdraw it and approach the authorities," Upadhyay submitted before the court, as quoted by the Bar and Bench.