Petitioner: Travancore Devasom Board
Respondents: Ayappa Spices & Ors
Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 363 2024 INSC 183
The case was first filed in the Kerala High Court, then an appeal was submitted in the Honourable Supreme Court. It deals with the issues of procurement of cardamom and quality control. Cardamom is used to prepare Aravana Prasadam at the Sabarimala Temple. Legal disagreements about the quality of the cardamom supplied and the protocols followed by the Travancore Devaswom Board resulted in the cancelation of tenders to acquire cardamom.
FACTS:
The Travancore Devaswom Board is a regulatory body that controls the temples and their administration in Kerala. Sabarimala Temple is one such temple that comes under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The board controls the overall administration including the bookings of devotees in a virtual queue, the wealth, and the preparation and distribution of Aravana Prasadham, considered an offering from the deity. The Aravana Prasadham is made out of rice, jaggery, ghee, and cardamom. For the preparation of the same raw materials are procured by issuing tender notices. This is done by the TDB.
To get the cardamom from November 2022 to September 2023, the board issued a tender notice in June. However, this tender had to be canceled because the cardamom contained pesticide presence that was beyond the acceptable amount. The Board again issued a tender for the same and had to cancel due to the aforesaid reason. The Board had to act immediately as the Mandalakalam, which is the festive season in Sabarimala was fast approaching. So, they issued the third tender which involved procuring cardamom from the local source. There were 4 bidders among them only two of the bidder’s cardamom was procured because the other two contained the presence of pesticide beyond the allowable quantity. Respondent no 2 of this case is one among them whose sample was sent for quality test in the Analytical Lab.
Seeing this, Respondent no 1 filed a writ petition in Kerala High Court alleging irregularities in the tender process and challenging the quality control measures. The Kerala High Court initially restrained the distribution of Aravana Prasadam and directed legal action under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. A writ of mandamus was submitted questioning the legality of the tenders issued.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the writ petition at the behest of respondent no.1 should have been entertained by the High Court?
- Whether the appellant Board qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined u/s.3(1) (j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
CONTENTIONS:
The case “Travancore Devaswom Board vs. Ayyappa Spices” (2024) involved several key contentions surrounding the procurement and quality of cardamom used for preparing Aravana Prasadam at the Sabarimala.
From the Appellant’s side:
The Board argued that the writ petition was motivated by unresolved business conflicts and underlying rivalry. They contended that respondent No. 1 had a history of involvement in prior tenders and had concealed this during litigation. The Board cited cases to support the position that such writ petitions should not be entertained.
The Board emphasized that Aravana Prasadam is a religious offering, not a commercial product for profit. They argued that treating the Board as a “food business operator” under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) would interfere with religious practices. They asserted that the Prasadam holds significant religious importance and that existing regulations should not apply to religious offerings.
From the Respondent’s side:
The respondent argued that the writ petition was filed in the public interest to highlight malpractices in the administration of the Sabarimala Temple. They raised concerns about the opaque manner in which the supply order was issued, including the lack of open tenders and proper quality checks.
This case also involves a question of Judicial Review. However, the court held that since the case involved public tender for procurement, judicial review is prohibited. Parties that are unsuccessful or who choose not to participate in the tender attempt to use Article 226 of the Constitution to claim jurisdiction over the High Court. In order to achieve the same goal, the public interest litigation (PIL) jurisdiction is also used. However, the Court typically discourages PILs because they lead to proxy litigation in simply contractual situations.
RATIONALE:
The above case revolved around two main issues. One main issue was the legality and impartiality of the procurement process. The other is compliance with food safety standards and the Board’s accountability as a public entity managing religious offerings.
The Court emphasized the religious significance of Aravana Prasadam, noting it as a sacred offering rather than a commercial product, and held that the Board did no wrong. This perspective shaped the Court’s approach, recognizing that the Board’s operations are intertwined with religious practices and should be viewed within this unique context. The Court found that the TDB acted transparently and in urgent circumstances due to the upcoming festive season. The court referred to UFLEX Ltd vs the Government of Tamil Nadu to deal with the tender and contractual matters.
The Board issued tenders, cancelled them due to non-compliance with pesticide limits, and subsequently invoked an urgency clause to procure cardamom locally. This demonstrated that the Board made every effort to follow a fair and transparent process. The Supreme Court concluded that there was no evidence of arbitrariness or malice in the TDB’s decisions. The Board had given fair opportunities to all prospective bidders, and the decision to cancel the tenders was based on legitimate concerns about pesticide contamination, not on any bias or improper motives. The High Court had directed legal action under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and restrained the distribution of the prasadam. The Supreme Court found this intervention unnecessary, stating that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition, as the TDB had taken appropriate steps to ensure food safety and compliance. The ruling underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in public procurement, especially in cases involving religious and public trust.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
In my understanding, there are a few potential defects in the application and interpretation of the law. The first will be the definition of a food business operator under the Food Safety and Standards Act, of 2006. While handling the case, the court had ambiguity in deciding whether Aravana Prasadam could be considered a religious offering or under commercial food safety standards.
Second will be the lack of clear legal guidelines distinguishing between commercial food products and religious offerings. This gap in the legal framework can lead to inconsistencies in judicial decisions, as seen in this case, where the sacred nature of the prasadam conflicted with food safety standards. Even though the FSSAI has taken the initiative known as BHOG- Blissful Hygienic Offering to God as per Schedule 4 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to ensure hygiene and sanitation standards, a clear recommendation is still required.
The other problem will be regarding the issuance of tenders. Here in the aforesaid case, the Devaswom board usually releases notice of tender through newspaper advertisements. But the third tender they issued was through the local notice board. This again reaffirms the necessity of transparency and fairness in public procurement, especially when public trust and religious practices are involved.
INFERENCE:
The Travancore Devaswom Board vs. Ayyappa Spices & Others case exemplifies the complexities involved in balancing religious practices with legal and health standards. The case underscores the challenge of balancing religious practices with regulatory compliance, particularly in contexts involving sacred offerings. The Supreme Court had to consider the religious significance of Aravana Prasadam while also ensuring that food safety standards were met.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Travancore Devaswom Board underscores the importance of considering the unique context of religious offerings while ensuring transparency and fairness in procurement processes. This case sets a precedent for handling similar disputes in the future, emphasizing the delicate balance between legal scrutiny and religious freedoms. The SC’s ruling also ensured justice and fairness by dismissing the High Court’s decision to prosecute the Board and destroy the prasadam was based on a thorough examination of the procurement process and the motives behind the PIL. The Board had committed no wrong since there was an urgency in procuring raw materials during that time. They just did their duty to fulfill the demands during the festive season. This case serves as a precedent for future cases which involve religious requirements and commercial interests.
Even though the case invokes certain loopholes in the system, addressing these issues requires legislative clarity, improved regulatory frameworks, and efficient judicial processes to ensure fairness and transparency in similar future cases.