Is it legal to build a temple for a living person in India? We could not find any Indian law that bans honouring a living person with a shrine. But a temple is also a building on land, and it can be paid for with money. The rules about land, local permission and government funds still apply, and these are where such projects have run into trouble.
This page is a plain-English guide for readers who saw the news about the proposed Modi Mandir in Patna and wondered what the law says. It is general information, not legal advice. For your own case, speak to a qualified lawyer in your state.
Key takeaways
- We found no Indian law that bans a temple for a living person. The problems that have come up are about land, permission and money.
- Whoever owns the land decides who may build on it. Land set aside for one purpose cannot simply be used for another.
- In Rajkot in 2015, revenue officials reportedly told the builders their Modi temple was illegal because they had no clearance.
- Article 27 of the Constitution says no one can be forced to pay taxes that are used specifically to promote one religion. Courts have read it narrowly.
- No court has ruled on the Patna proposal, and we found no report of land, funds or a trust being finalised.
What is the short answer?
The short answer is that the idea is not banned, but the project must still follow the rules. Like a small shop, it needs land you are allowed to use, local approval to build, and honest handling of the money.
Indian law is also not one single rulebook. The Constitution and national laws set some limits. Land and local building rules are mostly handled by state governments and city or village bodies, and they differ from state to state. So we explain the main questions to ask, not the exact section numbers of every state law.
Does any law ban honouring a living person?
We did not find one. Article 25 of the Constitution gives people the freedom to follow and practise their religion, and Article 26 lets religious groups manage their own affairs, both subject to public order, morality and health. These articles protect belief. They do not say who may or may not be honoured.
That is a legal point only. Whether it is wise, respectful or in line with religious tradition is a different question, and people disagree. Some religious thinkers say worship is meant for gods, not living leaders. We look at that side in our piece on the symbolism and ethics of living-figure iconography. Here we stay with the law.
For more examples, see our article on temples for living politicians in India.
Land: who owns it and what is it meant for?
Every temple stands on some piece of land. The first question is simple: who owns that land, and what is it officially meant for?
Private land
If a person or a trust owns the plot, the owner can usually decide to build on it, but only within the local rules. Many places divide land into uses, such as farming, homes, shops and public buildings. Building a place of worship on land marked for another use can need a change of use or a special approval. The exact process depends on the state and the local body.
Public or shared land
Village common land, roadside land and land held by a panchayat or municipality belongs to the public, not to any group of followers. A body such as a panchayat may allot it, but usually for the purpose it was set aside for and by following its own procedure.
Government land
If a state government gives land for a project, that is an official decision with records. It is not something a board member or a group can promise on their own. Later in this article we come back to what this means for Patna.
| Type of land | Who decides | Common questions to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Private plot | The owner, within local rules | Is the plot marked for this use? Is the title clear? |
| Village or municipal land | The panchayat or municipality, through its process | Was it set aside for another purpose? Was there a proper decision? |
| State government land | The state government, in writing | Is there an official order? On what terms? |
Local permission and building clearances
Even on land you may use, a building usually needs approval from the local authority before work starts. This normally covers the plan, the safety of the structure and fire rules. Large projects may need more checks, such as for traffic or the environment.
A religious building is not exempt just because it is a place of worship. Some states have extra rules for new religious structures, especially on public land or near roads. We have not listed those rules here because they differ and we have not verified each one. The place to check is your local municipal office or the state urban development or revenue department.
Why did Rajkot officials call its Modi temple illegal?
The best documented example is the 2015 Rajkot case. In early February 2015, followers of Narendra Modi built a small shrine in Kothariya village, near Rajkot in Gujarat. Reports differ on the cost. The Tribune reported about ₹5 lakh, while the Daily Excelsior reported about ₹7 lakh.
Modi said on Twitter that he had seen the news about a temple being built in his name and was appalled, according to the Daily Excelsior. He asked people to put their energy into the Clean India campaign.
On the legal side, the Tribune, in a report dated 13 February 2015, said revenue officials told the builders the construction was illegal because they had not obtained clearance. The paper also reported that the land had reportedly been set aside by the village panchayat for a Bharat Mata temple. The Daily Excelsior said the panchayat had allotted a 350 square yard plot about ten years earlier for a Bharat Mata temple, and that the group later chose to build a Modi temple instead. The Daily Excelsior report we read does not mention any official objection.
What happened next is also reported differently. The Tribune said the structure was demolished on 12 February 2015. The Daily Excelsior said the group covered the idol, cancelled the opening planned for 15 February, and planned to dedicate the shrine to Bharat Mata with a new idol. Because the reports differ, we describe the outcome as unsettled in the sources we read. Our detailed page on the Rajkot Modi temple compares both reports.
A smaller case came in Pune in August 2021, when a supporter built a Modi shrine on private land and the idol was removed within days. The reports we read describe party and political objections there, not a legal order. Read the details in our Pune Aundh Modi temple case study.
The lesson is about process. The reported legal problem was not that the temple honoured a living man. It was about clearance and about land set aside for a different use.
| Point | The Tribune | Daily Excelsior |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | About ₹5 lakh | ₹7 lakh |
| Clearance | Revenue officials said it was illegal, as no permission was taken | No official objection mentioned |
| Land | Reportedly set aside by the village panchayat for a Bharat Mata temple | 350 square yards given about ten years earlier for a Bharat Mata temple |
| Outcome | Demolished, report dated 12 February | Idol covered, opening cancelled, shrine to be rededicated to Bharat Mata |
Government money and Article 27
The second set of rules is about public money. Article 27 of the Constitution reads: "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." In simple words, the state cannot force you to pay a tax that is earmarked for one religion.
How courts have read it
According to a summary by iPleaders, the Supreme Court has dealt with Article 27 in a few well-known cases:
- The Shirur Mutt case (1954): the Court held that a contribution under a Madras law was a tax and not a fee, and that the money was for the proper administration of religious institutions, so Article 27 was not broken.
- K. Reghunath v. State of Kerala (1974): the Court held that money for restoring damaged places of worship came from a relief fund that was not built from tax money, and that restoring them did not amount to promoting a religion.
- Prafull Goradia v. Union of India (2011): on a Haj subsidy, the Court held that Article 27 applies where a substantial part of a tax is used for one religion, or where a law earmarks a tax for it. Small conveniences and facilities do not break it.
So Article 27 is about taxes that are specifically set aside for a religion. It does not say that a government can never spend any money near a religious place. Other rules and court decisions on state funding may also matter, and we explain them in our article on Article 27 and state funding of temples.
No court has ruled on the Patna proposal, so nobody can say today how these cases would apply to it.
Private money and trusts
If a temple is paid for by private donations, Article 27 is not the issue, because no tax is involved. Other questions then arise. Who holds the money? Who owns the temple? Who answers if funds are misused?
Groups often use a public trust or a registered society for this. A trust has written rules, named trustees and usually has to keep accounts. Rules for registering and reporting differ by state and by type of body. We have not verified any one set, so check with the registering office.
For a real example of how a temple trust works in Bihar, see our comparison with the Dharma Sansthan temple trust system. Our general page on law and money collects related explainers.
What does this mean for the Patna proposal?
On 29 July 2026, the Bihar State Transgender Welfare Board met in Patna. According to PTI, as published by ThePrint, it approved a proposal by board member Rajan Singh (PTI spells the name Ranjan) to build a temple for Narendra Modi. Singh said he proposed it because Modi gave the community respect and rights.
Here is how the questions above apply, based on what has been reported:
- Land: the Free Press Journal reported on 29 July that Singh said the state government would identify land. Navbharat Live reported on 1 August that no site had been chosen. We found no report of any land being identified or given.
- Money: ETV Bharat and PatnaPress reported on 11 August that Singh said the board had asked the government for five acres and ₹112 crore. These figures come from Singh's own statements. PatnaPress said it was not a sanctioned project. See our fact-check of the ₹112 crore figure.
- Permission: we found no report of any building approval, design or trust.
- Government view: we found no report of a statement from the Bihar government, the Prime Minister's Office or Modi on the temple.
Another point of fact: Queerbeat reported on 21 August that board member Anupriya Singh called the idea Rajan Singh's personal agenda, and that the 29 July minutes it saw did not mention the temple. So whether the board as a whole backs the plan is disputed. For the full chain of events, see the Patna Modi Mandir timeline.
If the project went ahead, the legal questions would be the same ones in this article. Where is the land and who owns it? Who approved the building? If government money is used, on what legal basis? If private money is used, who holds it?
What we do not know yet
- Whether the Bihar government has agreed to give land or money.
- Whether the proposal has reached the Cabinet Secretariat, as Singh said it would.
- Whether any trust or other body has been formed to run the temple.
- Whether the board as a whole supports the plan.
- Whether any court will be asked to look at it.
We will update this page if any of these points is confirmed by a credible source.
Where can I read the rules myself?
- The Constitution: Articles 25, 26 and 27 are short. The text of Article 27 is on constitutionofindia.net.
- Land and building rules: ask your municipal corporation, nagar panchayat or gram panchayat, and the revenue department of your state.
- Trust and society rules: ask the registering office in your state.
- Court decisions: search Indian Kanoon or the Supreme Court website for the case names listed above.
For how the temple was first reported, read Bihar transgender board approves Modi temple proposal. You can also browse all questions on our FAQ page.
Common questions
Is it illegal to worship a living person in India?
We found no law that makes it illegal. Belief and worship are protected within limits of public order, morality and health. Building, land and money rules still apply.
Was the Rajkot temple banned by a court?
We found no report of a court order. The Tribune reported that revenue officials told the builders it was illegal because they lacked clearance.
Can the government pay for a temple?
Article 27 only bars forcing people to pay taxes specifically earmarked for one religion. Courts have allowed some spending, but each case depends on its facts. This is general information, not legal advice.
Has the Patna temple been approved by the government?
We found no report of any government approval, land allotment or funding. The claims so far come from board member Rajan Singh.
Sources
- The Tribune, 13 February 2015: Modi appalled, followers demolish Rajkot temple
- Daily Excelsior, 13 February 2015: Modi appalled at temple dedicated to him, followers shelve plan
- iPleaders: Article 27 of the Indian Constitution
- Constitution of India text, Article 27
- Punekar News, 19 August 2021: Why was the Modi temple removed? The man who built it reveals
- PTI via ThePrint, 29 July 2026: Bihar transgender board approves proposal to construct temple in Modi's name
- Free Press Journal, 29 July 2026: Bihar's Transgender Welfare Board approves construction of temple dedicated to Modi
Last checked on 24 October 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us through our contact page.