However, one general observation: religion is a matter of choice. If I don't want to be a Hindu, I can be a Baptist (and many have made that conversion.) If I don't want to be a Catholic, I can be a Buddhist. I can be an atheist. Any law restricting religion, is in actually a law restricting my religious choice or my religious "free exercise" rights, to put it in American constitutional terms.
So a government that states: your clergy shall be selected in such-and-such a manner, your temple rites shall be carried out thus-and-so, your ethics (even assuming they don't involve force or fraud) shall conform to pages 160 - 803 of the government religious licensing code: this is not empowering to people. This is the forcible suppression of religious free exercise.
It makes it impossible for anyone to live in the manner of their traditions, by substituting conformity in the face of coercive government power (in the name of liberation) for the actual liberty to choose.
In one of the USSC cases involving the Amish, one Justice complained that an Amish kid who would have had the interest and the talent to become a concert pianist, would never become one with a traditional Amish education. He failed to mention that if you abolish traditional Amish education, nobody would have the glorious untrammeled freedom to live their lives as Amish.
They wouldn't even have freedom of association!
So that's my general attitude: as long as there's no force or fraud, let these religious groups live their lives by their own best practices--- not yours.
As long as those practices are not seen as conflicting with the constitution & the laws of the land. In this case, the claim to exclusive ancestral rights on the temple was rejected & the temple then goes under the control of the state government which appoints as per their rules. Specific rules could have continued only if that right of control was upheld.