Menu

CASE COMMENT: SHRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LR. VS STATE OF KERALA (2020)

Case Comment, Publications

CITATION

Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2020

DATE OF THE JUDGMENT

July 13, 2020

BENCH

 2-Judges Bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit & Justice Indu Malhotra

BACKGROUND

  • The temples, which were under the control of the then princely states of Travancore, were being governed by the Travancore & Cochin Devaswom Boards before 1947. (‘Devaswom’ means temple, along with its assets & properties)
  • The Instrument of Accession was signed, between the Government of India & the princely states, in 1949, which vested the administration & control of the Padmanabhaswamy temple, located at Thiruvananthapuram, in the Ruler of Travancore.
  • The Royal family had complete rights over the management of this temple; even after the formation of Kerala, as a state, in 1956.
  • The 26th Amendment of the Constitution, in 1971, removed Articles 291 & 362 & inserted Article 363A; resulting in ceasing of the recognition granted to the Rulers of the princely states, & abolition of the privy purses (the sum given to the Royals for personal expenses by the British, as a token of gratitude), & withdrawal of all the respective privileges & entitlements enjoyed by the Royals.[1]
  • The last Ruler of Travancore, Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, passed away in 1991 & the State Government permitted his younger brother, Marthanda Varma, to carry on exerting control over the temple.

FACTS

  • In 2007; Advocate Anand Padmanabhan, on behalf of 2 devotees, filed a lawsuit claiming of mismanagement of funds of the temple & praying for appointing new trustees to manage the wealth of the Deity.
  • The lower Court of Thiruvananthapuram ordered the State Government to take control of the temple & its assets.
  • The Royal family appealed the decision in the High Court & contended that they’re entitled to the control of the temple as they’ve been managing it for centuries & they hold the right to preside over the temple. The case was filed primarily to decide if their Shebait rights continue existing even after the demise of the last Ruler.
  • The Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that the Royal family isn’t entitled to any Shebait rights because; as per Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950;[2] any successor of the Ruler can’t claim same rights as that of the Ruler, after the demise of the last Ruler. The Court asked the Government of Kerala to set up a body or trust to govern the temple & exercise control over its assets &, with this judgment; all the properties & assets reverted to the State as per Articles 295 & 296 of the Constitution.[3]
  • 2 Special Leave Petitions were filed, under Article 136 of the Constitution, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by the aggrieved party, in May 2011, challenging the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court, in this case, also tried the writ petitions filed earlier regarding it. Of them; the 1st one was filed by Advocate T.P. Sundara Rajan; a tenant, who was asked to vacate his place, situated in the premises of the temple, by the Executive Officer of the temple. The petition was filed as a reply to eviction proceedings, praying to the High Court to issue the writ of Quo Warranto & questioning the authority of Uthradam Varma in holding the post of Executive Officer of the temple. The 2nd petition was filed by Marthanda Varma himself, in 2010, demanding maintainability & raising questions to the Court about the Ownership of the temple.
  • The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s decision & also ordered the opening of the Vaults (‘Kallaras’ in Malayalam), numbered as A-F, of the temple, to ascertain the inventory present in the temple & decide the approximate wealth of the temple. Later; the Royal family succeeded in getting an injunction from the Supreme Court against opening Vault B as there were claims regarding the extraordinary treasure with mystical energy present in that particular Vault. Vault B is popularly considered to be closed by using ‘Naga Bandhana’ by the Siddha (Self-Realized) Sages, in the 16th century; & there’s a general belief, regarding it, in the public domain, that it can only be opened with the proper & correct chanting of the ‘Garuda Mantra’ by any Siddha Sage & also, if anyone attempts to open it forcibly, with external pressure, then disasters are likely to come about throughout the world.
  • On 23August 2013; Advocate Gopal Subramaniam, the former Solicitor-General of India, was appointed as the amicus curiae, by the Court, for assessing the activities at the temple. He suggested certain measures including strengthening security of the Vaults, restraining media coverage (so that the image of the Expert Committee isn’t tainted), efficient & effective management of the affairs of the temple regularly etc.  
  • He submitted his final report in April 2014. Based on his report, the power to manage the temple was withdrawn from the Royal family & provided to the Committee, formed by the Court, until the case is finally decided.
  • The further case was deliberated by adhering to his reports & other relevant details.

ISSUES RAISED

  • Is the heir of the last Ruler of Travancore entitled to claim the title of ‘Ruler of Travancore’; as per its meaning elucidated in Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950?
  • Can the Royal family claim the ownership, control & management of the temple, its assets, & the status of Shebaitship?
  • What was the aftermath of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, 1971 over the powers related to the management of the temple that was vested in the Ruler of the Travancore?
  • Is Shri Padmanabhaswamy Temple a public property or a private property belonging to the Royal family?
  • What’s the relation of Article 363 to this particular case & does intervention in this matter fall within the jurisdiction of the Court?
  • Would the principle of Escheat be applicable to this case of the right of Shebaitship?

CONTENTIONS

  1. FOR APPELLANTS’ SIDE
  2. Advocate Krishnan Venugopal contended that the Covenant (Taken by the last Ruler in 1949) & the Act aren’t the source of the Trust but only recognize the pre-existing rights of the Ruler to manage the temple & regulate that right to the limited extent of providing that the Ruler, as Trustee, shall control the administration of the temple, through an Executive Officer.
  3. Advocate Arvind Datar emphasised the expression ‘Present Ruler’, which is there in Article IV of the Covenant, as against the term ‘Ruler’ appearing in other places in the Covenant, & submitted that the term ‘Ruler’ must mean the Ruler who succeeded to the Raja Gaddi, as per the customs & usages. He, also, contended that there’s a bar, under Article 363 of the Constitution, to entertain this dispute because the Covenants were signed by the Secretary to the Government of India & indicated as of the nature of an Act of a State & the municipal Court couldn’t have jurisdiction over any disputes on its terms.
  4. Advocate M.K.S Menon contended that the 26th Amendment of the Constitution wouldn’t impact the mode of succession to the office of a Trustee; & the word ‘Ruler’, in Section 18, wasn’t to limit the Trusteeship to the ‘Last Ruler’.
  5. The most important submission was made by Advocate J Sai Deepak; on behalf of the Chief Tantri, who’s stated to hold the Vyasa Gaddi & be the final authority on the religious practices & traditions, of the temple. He contended that the Royal family traces its lineage to Maharaja Aditya Varma on whom Bhagwan Parashurama is believed to have bestowed the duty to take care of the temple & hence; its role as ‘Padmanabhadasa’ (meaning the Servant of Bhagwan Padmanabhaswamy), being indispensable to the very foundational identity of the temple, would be completely protected by Articles 25(1) & 26(b) of the Constitution.[4] He further submitted that the ‘Parashurama Paddhati’, practised by merely a handful of temples in the World, including this temple, has a unique identity of its own; & the people, integrally connected to this temple, would be entitled to protection under Article 29(1).[5] He, further, submitted that Article VIII is an independent recognition of the relationship existing between the Ruler & the temple & is neither part of the Privy Purse arrangement; under Article XIV; nor part of the personal rights, privileges & titles of the Ruler; as referred to in Article XVII of the Covenant; & hence; any development, affecting other provisions of the Covenant, wouldn’t affect Article VIII.
  6. FOR RESPONDENTS’ SIDE
  7. Advocate Jaideep Gupta contended that the term ‘Ruler’, in Section 18, must be given the same meaning as the one contained in Article 366(22) of the Constitution.[6] He, further, contended that the relationship; between the Royal family & the Temple; right from its inception; was devolved upon the Ruler, in his capacity as a Ruler, & not as a private individual being the senior member of the successive generation of the Royal family. It underwent a change after the enactment of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. Thus, it became a statutory office & ceased possessing the nature of private Shebaitship or hereditary Trusteeship. He, also, submitted that; in absence of a legitimate claim by a rightfully constituted Religious Denomination; no question, of adjudicating a finding regarding infringement of any rights under Articles 25 & 26, arises.
  8. Advocate P.B.Suresh submitted that the Covenants, executed by the erstwhile Rulers, don’t exist & hence, aren’t enforceable at all. He, further, contended; based on the decision of the Supreme Court; in Bala Shankar Bhattjee VS Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State(1994);[7] that the exclusive private management of a public temple would be antithesis to the very character of a public temple.

JUDGEMENT (RATIONALE)

  • Based on its earlier decision in Mahavir Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo Kakatiya VS the State of Madhya Pradesh (1960);[8] the Supreme Court held that the status of Shebaitship exists independently to the status of the Ruler of Travancore. & the definition of ‘Ruler’, according to Articles 363 & 366(22), is only applicable for the purpose of these 2 Articles exclusively.
  • Based on its earlier decision in Angurbala Mullick VS Debabrata Mullick (1951);[9] the Court differed from the decision of the Kerala High Court & held that the status of Shebaitship should be passed to the Royal family since they’re the actual Custodians of the Ruler & have been sincerely taking care of the temple for such a long time.
  • Based on its earlier decision in Maharaja Madhav Rao Scindia VS Union Of India (1971);[10] the Court held that the 26th amendment doesn’t, in any way, affect any right of the Ruler of Travancore, regarding the control of the temple.
  • Based on its earlier decision in Bala Shankar Bhattjee VS Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State(1994); the Court held that the Padmanabhaswamy temple is a public property.
  • The Court held that the conditions to impose bar, as per Article 363, aren’t fulfilled. Hence, there’ll be no impact of Article 363.
  • The court found that the demise of the last Ruler doesn’t impact the status of Shebaitship because Chapter III of Part I of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 uses the title of the Ruler of Travancore only for the natural successors. Thus; the Royal family shall be entitled to its Shebait rights, by application of the principle of Escheat, as the status is being held by them for such a long period.

Thus; the Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled the judgment of the Kerala High Court & decided the case, in favour of the Royal family of Travancore.

DEFECTS

  • The discovery of the wealth, in those underground Vaults; exposed the temple to greater security concerns. The annual income (from the offerings & donations) wasn’t sufficient for its maintenance & other expenditures &; as after the judgment, the security is to be maintained by the temple itself; it’s considerably difficult for the temple to continue making security arrangements, in the best way possible. Moreover; during the COVID-19 pandemic, the offerings decreased significantly; which is likely to compel the temple to approach the Government, for managing the affairs of the temple effectively.
  • It’s violative of Articles 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution. This ground was raised before the Supreme Court, by Advocate J Sai Deepak; but it was dismissed only because this particular submission wasn’t presented before the High Court.

INFERENCE

This 218-page landmark judgment effectively ended all unwarranted controversies, regarding the World-Famous Padmanabhaswamy Temple, which is the object of worship & reverence for millions & millions of devotees of Bhagwan Padmanabhaswamy, across the globe. The Temple & the Travancore Royal family, which were in the news for all the wrong reasons, stood exonerated by this verdict restoring the control & management of the Temple & all its assets to them. To conclude, let’s second the following words of Advocate J Sai Deepak:- “…everything that’s unconstitutional, untenable & unsustainable, with state control of Temples, was facilitated by a judgment of the constitutional Court of the most literate state of the country.

In stark contrast, the Supreme Court’s Judgment has set the balance right by recognising the sacred & special relationship between the Travancore Royal Family & the Temple which was evidenced & endorsed by Article VIII of the Covenant. The Court has recognised that Article VIII represents the acknowledgement by the Indian Union of the special relationship of Shebaitship (the earthly custodian & representative of the Deity) that exists between the Travancore Royal family & Lord Padmanabhaswamy. The Court has further recognised that the relationship was independent of and unrelated to any titles bestowed upon Indian Rulers by the British.”[11]

Author:- Koustuv Maitra; Department of Law, University of Calcutta

[1] INDIA CONST. art. 363A, amended by The Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971

[2] Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, § 18(2), No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 1950 (India)

[3] INDIA CONST. art. 295-296

[4] INDIA CONST. art. 25-26

[5] INDIA CONST. art. 29, cl. 1

[6] INDIA CONST. art. 366, cl. 22

[7] Bala Shankar Bhattjee VS Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, AIR 1995 SC 167

[8] Mahavir Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo Kakatiya VS the State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 775

[9] Angurbala Mullick VS Debabrata Mullick, AIR 1951 SC 293

[10] Maharaja Madhav Rao Scindia VS Union Of India, AIR 1971 SC 530

[11] J Sai Deepak, 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘮𝘺 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵: 𝘈 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺, The Daily Guardian (July 17, 2020, 5:49 am), https://thedailyguardian.com/the-sree-padmanabhaswamy-verdict-a-case-for-indic-civilisational-identity/