In News: Reversing the 2011 Kerala High Court decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Travancore royal family in administration of the historic Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala.
The court said that, as per customary law, the shebait rights (right to manage the financial affairs of the deity) survive with the members of the family even after the death of the last ruler.
The Apex Court entrusted the responsibility of managing affairs of the temple to a district judge of Thiruvananthapuram who will head an administrative committee that will oversee the affairs.
The court set aside a Jan 31, 2011 verdict of the Kerala HC which had asked the state government to set up a trust to take control of the temple.
The SC directed setting up of two committees: Administrative and Advisory
Administrative Committee
Chairperson – Thiruvananthapuram District Judge
Other members of the Committee:
a nominee of the trustee (royal family),
the chief thanthri (priest) of the temple,
a nominee of the State and
a member nominated by the Union Ministry of Culture.
Advisory Committee
Headed by: Former high court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court
a chartered accountant and
a nominee of the royal family.
The controversy over the administration and management of the historic temple had been pending in the apex court for the last nine years in the wake of charges of alleged financial irregularities. The ruling thus, ends the legal battle the temple and members of the royal family have fought with the government for decades over control of one of the richest temples in the world.
What is the case about?
The central legal question was whether Utradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma, the younger brother of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the last Ruler of Travancore, could claim to be the “Ruler of Travancore” after the death of the ruler in 1991. The court examined this claim within the limited meaning of that term according to the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 to claim ownership, control and management of the ancient Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple.
Before 1991
All the temples which were under the control and management of the erstwhile Princely States of Travancore and Cochin were under the control of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards before 1947. However, as per the Instrument of Accession signed between the princely states and the Government of India, since 1949, the administration of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple was “vested in trust” in the Ruler of Travancore. The state of Kerala was carved out in 1956 but the temple continued to be managed by the erstwhile royals.
In 1971, privy purses to the former royals were abolished through a constitutional amendment stripping their entitlements and privileges. The move was upheld in court in 1993 and the last ruler of Travancore who died during the pendency of this case continued to manage the affairs of the temple till then.
In 1991, when the last ruler’s brother took over the temple management, it created a furore among devotees who moved the courts leading to a long-drawn legal battle. The government joined in; supporting the claims of the petitioner that Marthanda Varma had no legal right to claim the control or management of the temple.
Coming to the present
Is the temple the property of the royal family?
No. The character of the temple was always recognised as a public institution governed by a statute. The argument of the royal family is that the temple management would vest with them for perpetuity, as per custom. Even though the last ruler Balarama Varma executed a detailed will bequeathing his personal properties, he had not included the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple as his personal property or dealt with it in his will.
So, what about the Padmanabhaswamy temple’s property and the riches it is bestowed with?
A consequence of who has administrative rights over the temple is whether the vaults of the temple will be opened. In 2007, Marthanda Varma claimed that the treasures of the temple were the family property of the royals. Several suits were filed objecting to this claim and a lower court in Kerala passed an injunction against the opening of the vaults.
The Kerala High Court in the 2011 ruling passed an order that a board be constituted to manage the affairs of the temple, ruling against the royal family. The appeal against this verdict was filed by the royal family immediately and the SC had stayed the HC verdict.
By appointing two amicus curiae- senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam and former Comptroller and Auditor General of India Vinod Rai to prepare an inventory of items in the vaults. While five vaults were opened of the six, vault B was not opened. The royal family had claimed that a mythical curse is associated with the opening of vault B.
Some of the questions that SC answered
Did the Constitution of India and further the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1950 (TC Act) alter the status and entitlement of the ruler of Travancore to the Shebaitship of the temple?
The court said, “..the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India as well as that of the TC Act did not, in any way, upset or abridge the status enjoyed by the Ruler of Travancore as Shebait of the Temple and also did not, in any manner, adversely impact the right of administration vested in the Ruler of Travancore. As a matter of fact, the relevant provisions of the TC Act afforded statutory flavour to the status contemplated by Article VIII of the Covenant.”
Did the 26th constitutional amendment act which abolished privy purses and other privileges of former kings affect the status and entitlement of the ruler of Travancore to the Shebaitship of the temple?
The court said, “..did not in any way impact or affect the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and the properties of the Temple, which continued to be under the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore.”
Whether the death in 1991 of Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma who had signed the Covenant, affect the Shebaitship of the temple held by the royal family of Travancore?
Resolving this, the court categorically stated in the negative and further held that: “After such death, the Shebaitship must devolve in accordance with the applicable law and custom upon his successor; that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act must include his natural successors according to law and custom; and that the Shebaitship did not lapse in favour of the State by principle of escheat.”
Note:
A. Shebait is any person who serves and supports the deity and manages properties like the temple or land which is vested with the deity.
The expression “shebait” (Commonly used in Bengal) is derived from “sewa” which means “service”.
Shebait, in a literal sense, means one who renders sewa to the idol or the deity.
B. Some other religious cases-
InDurgah Committee vs. Syed Hussain Ali (1961), the Khadims of the tomb of Khwaja Moin-ud-din Chishti of Ajmer challenged the validity of the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, which took away their “right of management of the Durgah”, by arguing that the Act hindered their right to freedom of religion, among other fundamental rights. A Constitution Bench decided that the management of properties of the Durgah was always in the hands of the state and the denomination never had the right to manage the properties endowed in favour of a denominational institution. Consequently, Articles 26(c) and (d) of the Constitution also never came to the rescue of petitioners.
In Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs. State of Rajasthan (1963), the Tilkayat challenged the validity of the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959, which took away his right to manage the temple properties on the grounds that it was his private property and its deprivation violated his rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench analysed the historical background of the temple and held that though the idols of the deities of the Nathdwara Temple belonged to the Tilkayat and his family, the temple land was granted to him by a firman. Hence his “management rights” could be taken away by the state though his ceremonial rights were upheld. Noted jurist H M Seervai hailed this decision as a secular decision.
Connecting the Dots:
Is SC verdict on Padmanabha Swamy temple a game changer? Explain.
Politics should not interfere in faith and faith should not interfere in politics. Discuss.
