The relevant test, drawn from the constitutional bar on using tax proceeds to foster a religion, asks what the true object of the expenditure is: is it to promote or preserve a particular faith, or does it serve some genuinely secular purpose that happens to be connected with a religious structure?
Here, the water tanks belong to a temple but are actually used by the general public, of any religion, for bathing and drinking. That means the real object of renovating them is to maintain a public amenity and safeguard public health, a secular purpose, rather than to foster the Hindu religion as such. Because the beneficiaries are the public at large and the function served is non-religious in character, the expenditure escapes the constitutional objection that would apply if funds were used exclusively to promote religious worship or ritual.
This is why options framing the expenditure as compelled "tax for religious promotion" or straightforward "promotion of Hindu religion" do not fit, they ignore the secular, public-use character of the tanks that is central to the facts.
The correct answer is that the State cannot be said to be promoting or maintaining the Hindu religion.
The key question is whether the State singled out one religion for benefit. When public funds are used to restore religious structures of every affected community equally, rather than favouring one faith, the object of the expenditure is restoration of public order and rectification of riot damage, not promotion of any particular religion.
Here, both religion 'A' and religion 'B' had their places of worship restored using public funds after the riots damaged both. This even-handed treatment is the critical fact, it shows the State was responding to communal violence generically, not preferring one community's religion over the other's. An option that says the act "condones" the violence misreads restoration as endorsement of the riot itself, when restoring damaged property is precisely the kind of remedial state action expected after such incidents, and has nothing to do with tolerating the violence. Likewise, framing the act as "promoting a particular religion" does not fit facts where two religions, not one, were treated identically.
Since neither religion was singled out, the constitutional bar on funding religious promotion is not engaged.
The correct answer is that the State Government's act is not violative of the Constitution of India, as it is not promoting or maintaining any particular religion.
The question to ask is why only religion 'B's place of worship was restored, was it because the State wanted to favour religion 'B', or simply because that was the only structure damaged in the riots? On these facts, it is plainly the latter, religion 'A's place of worship was untouched, so there was nothing there to restore.
Once the restoration is understood as a response calibrated to actual riot damage rather than a deliberate preference, it becomes clear the State's object remains restoring public order and communal harmony, not fostering religion 'B'. An option asserting the act is valid "because" the State is promoting a particular religion cannot be right, since promoting a religion is the very thing that would make the act unconstitutional, not something that saves it. Equally, treating restoration as "condoning" the riot conflates a corrective measure with endorsement of the violence that necessitated it, which is not a fair reading of the facts.
Since the scope of State action mirrors the scope of the damage, and not any religious preference, the constitutional objection does not arise.
The correct answer is that the State Government's act is not violative of the Constitution of India, as it is not promoting or maintaining a particular religion.
The distinguishing test here is tax versus fee: a tax whose proceeds are appropriated to promote a religion is barred, while a fee charged for an identifiable secular service, such as safety arrangements for pilgrims, remains valid even if it happens to relate to a religious gathering.
Here, the levy is described as a "hefty pilgrimage tax", compulsorily imposed on all residents of the State, and its purpose is explicitly to "aid the State in organizing" a pilgrimage that only followers of religion 'X' undertake. That is materially different from a fee charged to fund crowd-safety or health measures for pilgrims, since it funds the religious event itself and is levied on every resident rather than only those using a particular service. Because it is a compulsory tax that finances the organization of a practice specific to one religion, it results in citizens of all faiths being made to contribute to the promotion of religion 'X', which is exactly what the constitutional bar targets.
Options suggesting the act is valid, or that it does not promote religion 'X', overlook this tax-versus-fee distinction and the exclusively religious character of the funded pilgrimage.
The correct answer is that the State Government's act is violative of the Constitution of India, as it compels citizens to pay tax for promoting or maintaining religion 'X'.
The relevant inquiry is the true object of the legislation, is it aimed at religious matters, doctrine, or promotion, or at the secular administration of institutions that happen to be religious in character? Laws regulating the management, accountability and finances of religious trusts fall in the latter category and are generally valid, since the State can regulate secular aspects of religious institutions without infringing on religion itself.
Here, the legislation creates a Commissioner specifically for "better administration and governance" of Hindu religious endowments, meaning oversight of temple property and funds, and requires temples to fund that supervisory machinery through an annual contribution. This is a classic administrative and regulatory scheme, not an attempt to foster or propagate the Hindu religion, so options attributing the outcome to "fostering" the religion mischaracterize the object even where they reach the right practical conclusion. The objection that the law does not cover all religions' endowments also does not hold, since a State may legislate for one class of religious institutions at a time without being obligated to legislate for every religion simultaneously in the same statute.
Because the contribution funds administrative regulation rather than religious promotion, it survives constitutional scrutiny.
The correct answer is that the legislation is not violative of the Constitution of India, because its object is the proper administration of religious trusts and institutions.