Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Judgement: A Huge Victory for Hindus(6 min read)

Judgement:

Supreme Court of India upheld the rights of erstwhile “Royal Family of Travancore” to manage Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and its properties famously known as “Pandaravaka Properties” reversing the decision of High Court of Kerala.

Main Reason for the Dispute

1. The original petition was first filed in the High Court of Kerala by a Tenant who was residing in the temple premises, against whom, the eviction proceeding has been taken by management.
2. At the same time couple of suits were filed in the local courts of Thiruvanantha Puram, alleging mismanagement of the temple.  

Chronological Order of Events

• Dwapara Yuga – Lord Parashurama consecrated the Padmanabha Swamy Murthy and commenced pujas.
• 1731 - One of the most powerful King of Travancore, Anizam Thirunal Marthanda Varma, reconstructed temple.
  
• 1750 – “Thripatti Danam” (King surrendered his Kingdom to the residing deity), and declared himself as, “Padmanabha Dasa” or slave of Lord Padmanabha Swamy.     
  
• 1947 – Rulers of Travancore and Cochin executed separate Instrument of Accession with Dominion of India.
  
• 1948 – The Travancore Interim Constitution Act, 1123 came into force on 24^th March 1948.
• 1949 -

o   Covenant was entered into between Rulers of Travancore Cochin on the one side and Union of India on the other side.

o   On 1^st July 1949, Covenant published in Gazette and Ruler of Travancore became “Rajpramukh”.

o   Instrument of Accession entered into by the Rajpramukh of United State of Travancore-Cochin with Union of India on 14^th of July.

• 1950 – Travancore Cochin (Hindu Religious Institution) Act, 1950, was enacted by the State Government.
   
• 1956 – States Reorganization Act, 1956 came into existence, as a result of it, the office of Rajpramukh came to end.
• 1971 – Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 was passed by Parliament, as result, Privy Purse and other privileges of former Rulers of Indian States came to end
  
  
• 1972 – Rulers of Indian States (Abolition of Privileges) Act, 1972 passed by Parliament.
• 1991 – 

               o   The Last Ruler of Travancore, Sree Chithira Thirunal Marthanda Varma, who was                                   signatory to the Covenant died on 19^th of July.

               o   The Senior Most male member of the family, Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma, took                         charge of Administration of the Temple. 

• 2009 – T.P Saundara Rajan, a practicing Advocate of Thiruvanantha Puram filed a Writ Petition in High Court of Kerala, praying to issue Writ of Quo Warranto to the Royal Family of Travancore.
   
• 2010 – Royal Family of Travancore approached High Court. 
• 2011 – 

               o   The High Court of Kerala gave verdict against appellants (Royal Family) and gave                                   directions to the State Government to interfere in Administration.

               o   Appellants being aggrieved, approached Supreme Court, the Court issued stay order on the                     impugned judgement on 2^nd of May and gave directions to constitute Expert Committee in                     regard with the Inventory, Conservation and Security.

               o   On 22^nd of September Expert Committee submitted Report

• 2020 – Supreme Court of India Upheld the rights of erstwhile Royal Family of Travancore by                 reversing the decision of High Court of Kerala.

Sree Padmanabha Swamy: Thiruvanantha Puram

The Padmanabha Swamy Temple is located in Thiruvanantapuram, the state Capital of Kerala. The etymological meaning of the city Thiruvanantapuram in malyalam translates to “The city of Lord Anantha” referring to the deity Padmanabha Swamy.

The temple is built in a unique “Chera” style of architecture, and its principal deity is Lord Vishnu who is found in the Anantha Shayana posture (eternal yogic) on the serpent Adishesha. Padmanabha Swamy is the tutelary deity of the Royal Family of Travancore.

Brief History of the Temple 

According to sthala puranam “Kerala Mahatmyam” Lord Parashurama consecrated the idol Sree Padmanabha Swamy in Dwapara Yuga. Parashurama entrusted “Kshetra Karyam” (Administration of Temple) with seven Potti families. King Aditya Vikrama of Vanch (Venad) was directed by parashuram to protect the temple. Parasurama gave the Tantram of the Temple to Tharananallur Namboothiripad.

Modern History

• The modern history of the Padmanabha Swamy temple starts with King Anizam Thirunal Martanda Varma who established the modern Kingdom of Travancore 200 years ago. 
• Before this, the temple was under the control of “Ettarayogam” (a group of eight and a half) consisting of seven Pottis (Brahmins) and One Nair chieftain and the King who had only half a vote, whereas all others had one vote each.
• While the committee of Pottis controlled the temple, the properties were managed by “Ettuveettil Pillamars”, the 8 Nair chieftains belonging to 8 big families spread over 8 different villages of the state. The King of low-key functionary in the committee who had half a vote.
• Ettuveetil Pillamars with the help of Brahmins plotted against Marthanda Varma becoming King and they tried to install the previous King’s son as a King in deviation of the practice, nephew of the previous King becoming King.
• However, in the prolonged battle between the heir to the throne, namely Marthanda Varma and his loyalist on the one side and Ettuveetil Pillamars and Brahmins and King sons’ loyalists on the other side, Marthanda Varma succeeded.
• Marthanda Varma took over full control of the state and the temple was reconstructed which was in bad shape after a major fire that took place years back and installed a new idol. King surrendered his Kingdom to the residing deity Padmanabha Swamy and declared himself as Padmanabha Dasa, slave of Lord Padmanabha Swamy.
• The act of surrender or dedication of entire Kingdom to Sree Padmanabha Swamy has referred by Kerala High Court has been described in a book titled “Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple” authored by princess “Aswathi Thirunal Gowri Lakshmi Bai” as “Thripatti Danam” on 5th Makaram 925-me/1750 AD or 20th January 1750 AD stood witness to the act of sublime dedication, the ultimate offering possible for a crowned head carried out in Supreme devotion. Marthanda Varma ruled Travancore from 1729 to 1758 and after him also the temple continued to be under direct management and control of the King. 

Kerala High Court Judgement

The High Court concluded that after the definition of the Ruler appearing in article 366(2) of Constitution was amended in 26th amendment Act 1971 the appellant could not claim to be in control or management of temple as the successor to the last Ruler and issued following directions:

1. There shall be a direction to the state government to immediately take steps to constitute a body corporate or trust or other legal authority to control and manage the temple and assets within 3 months.
2. There will be an order of injunction to the petitioners against the opening of Kallaras or removing any articled from the temples.
3. There will be a direction to the authority to open all Kallaras, make an inventory of entire articles and create a museum, exhibit all treasures of the temple for public devotees, and tourists with a fee in temple premises.
4. Considering valuable and precious treasures in the temple, the government should handover the security to the team of Police or at least assist with temple security. 

 Supreme Court's Findings

• Shebaitship
• The temple had always been with the Rukers of Travancore, till the signing of the Covenant, were in the capacity as Managers or Shebaits of the Temple.
• Every Ruler of Travancore called themselves as "Padmanabhadasa" i.e., one who is engaged in the service of Lord Padmanabha Swamy.
• Therefore on this note Supreme Court held that, death will not effect the rights of Shebaitship of the family over the diety and the Royal Family of Tavancore can be considered as Shebaits of the Temple and they will survive as per custom.
•  Effect of Covenant
• Administration of Temple and Pandaravaka Properties existed before the Covenant.
• In Article VIII (b) of the Covenant, which deals with Administration of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple and Panadaravaka Properties were vested with the Ruler of Travancore.
• The Court concluded that Article VIII (b) of the Covenant not only acknowledged and accepted the facts in respect to the case that, going by a general law of Shebaitship as discussed earlier, the succession according to law and custom, but every successor to the Ruler who signed Covenant would also be entitled to such right.
• Effect of 26th Amendment Act
• The Parliament enacted The Constitution(Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 which abolished Privy Purse and derecognized the titles like, Rulers, Maharaja etc. incidentally Article-291 and Article-362 were repealed and Article-366(22) was added in the Constitution.
• Article VIII (b) of the Covenant which defines “Ruler of Travancore” and administers the rules regarding Temple and Pandaravaka properties. It concluded that title “Ruler of Travancore” is to locate and describe the person who would be in control and supervision in administration and Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, did not in any way impact the administration of Temple and Pandaravaka properties, which continue to be under the control of Ruler of Travancore.
• Death of Last Ruler
• In 1991, the Last Ruler of Travancore, Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, who was signatory to the Covenant died.
• The question before the court was weather the younger brother could after the death of Last Ruler claim to be the Ruler of Travancore within the meaning of 18(2) of Travancore-Cochin (Hindu Religious Institution) Act, 1950.
• The Court ruled that death will not affect the rights of Shebaitship and Article 366(22) has no application but T.C Act and the Covenant.

Administrative Committee

The Royal Family of Travanore suggested that, the Administrative Committee consisting of following composition:

1. A retired Administrative Service Officer of the rank of Secretary to Government of Kerala nominated by Trustee in consultation with Government of Kerala in who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee;
2. One member nominated by the Trustee;
3. One member nominated Government of Kerala;
4.  One member nominated by Ministry of Culture, GOI; and
5. The Chief Thantri of the Temple.

The Supreme Court accepted with minor change, i.e., instead of Administrative Service Officer, District Judge will  be the Chairperson of the Committee.

The Administrative Committee shall not take any decision on the following matter of policy except after obtaining the approval of the Trustee:

1. Any expense item exceeding  Rs.15 Lakhs per month.
2. Any one time expense of Rs.1 crore.
3. Any major Renovation/Expansion of  the Temple.
4. Any changes in Standard Operation Procedures of the Temple.
5. Any fundamental changes in the character of the Temple that would affect the religious sentiments of its devotees.

Advisory Committee

• In Chapter III of Travancore-Cochin (Hindu Religious Institutions) Act, Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, section-20 of the act provides Exclusive Power to the Ruler to set-up Sree Padmanbha Swamy Temple Advisory Committee.
• But, in the submissions made by the Family in the Supreme Court, suggested the folloing composition:
• A retired High Court Judge who shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court and who shall be the Chairmen of the Committee;
• One eminent person nominated by the Trustee;
• A reputed Chartered Accountant to be nominated by the Chairmen in consultation with the Trustee.
• The Supreme Court accepted the submissions of the appellants. 

Directions to the Committees

• Preserve all treasures and properties endowed to Sree Padmanabhaswamy and those belonging to the temple.
• Protect all tenanted properties and take appropriate measures to ensure reasonable returns from such lands.
• Ensure all rituals and religious practices are performed according to the traditions.
• Take steps to return the amount expended by State Government.
• All income accruing from the Temple shall be expended to improve facilities, religious charitable purposes, investments that will fetch reasonable returns.
• Recover and retrieve any property or funds of the Temple which have been put to misuse.
• Audit for the last 25 years as suggested by learned Amicus Curiae.
• Take appropriate steps for conservation of Temple
• Opening of Kallara-B and inventorying the same is left to the Committees.
• Conduct all the obligations which from time to time were bestowed on various committees by the Court including that of the Selection Committee for Sreekovil.
• Shall file Reports to the Court by second week of December 2020 stating all developments.
• Shall file audited accounts and Balance Sheet with the office of Accountant General for the State, every year.

Conclusion

The main issue in this case was whether the Royal Family of Travancore considered as Shebaits of the Temple and after the death of last Ruler will the Administration of Temple to be continued with the Family. These questions were answered and reasoned with very careful understandings of the Court and held in favor of Travancore Royal Family. To control exclusive authority by the Trustee over the Temple, balanced by, delegating powers to Administrative Committee as suggested by Royal Family.

Encroachment of Hindu Temples by the States is very common in order get monetary benefits out of it. This biased behavior by the Governments is against the Constitution. Article-26 of the Constitution provides Freedom to manage religious affairs is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Part-III. This judgement will set a precedent for future cases and serves as good arguments.

Hindu Temples and Encroachment by State

Hindu Temples are the most attacked and Targeted Religious Institutions in India because of its monetary benefits. Government taking over Temple Administration are against the Fundamental Rights conferred under Constitution as State being Secular in its character.

• In India there are around 9 lakh (approx) Hindu Temples, out of which 4 lakh Temples are under state control.
• Especially in South India, there are about 2 lakh temples under state are very rich.
• The concept of Encroaching Hindu Temples first started by British and it still continued by our Governments.
• British government enacted The Religious Endowments Act 1863, and took control over the Temples.
• In the same way Government of India enacted “The Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1951” which allows state to take control over the Temple and managing its administration and state governments are allowed to make laws with respect to Religious Endowments.
• In many numbers of cases Courts have questioned against Government Authorities taking over administration of Temples and also said this task should be entrusted by devotees of the temple and expressed concern over the failure of state governments managing temple affairs.

Denominational Character of the Temple

• In this case the question regarding denominational character of the Temple was raised by the intervenors, “People for Dharma.
• Adv. J. Sai Deepak on behalf of intervenors submitted regarding the denominational character of the Temple and the said denominational character is protected under Article-25(1) and Article-26(b) of the Constitution.
• He further submitted that, the denominational identity of the Temple and its religious character are protected under section-3 & 4 read with section-7 of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
• Unfortunately Supreme Court did not consider and also stated that, the question of religious denomination never raised before the High Court or in this Court on behalf of the appellants, so in absence of pleadings by competent claimants i.e., Royal Family.
• Therefore Court arrived the same conclusion considering Article-VIII of the Covenant. 

References

1.     Supreme Court Judgement

2.     Submission made by Adv. J. Sai Deepak