Reeja R vs Travancore Devaswom Board Represented By Its Secretary

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The issue raised in W.P.(C)Nos.17732 of 2023 and 24980 of 2023 and in DBP No.48 of 2023 relates to performance of daily rituals in Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swamy Temple, a temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board.

1.1. W.P(C)No.17732 of 2023 is one filed by the petitioners, who are ‘Karanma Sambandhis’ of the said temple, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 and P3(a) notices issued by the 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to the seniormost member in Murickanattu family and Mannakunnathu family, in respect of Karanma service as ‘Sambandhis’, rendered by the petitioners. The further relief sought for is a declaration that Exts.P3 and P3(a) notices relate to alteration of service conditions of the petitioners, which the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner or the 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner cannot unilaterally determine particularly when the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, based on Ext.P5 communication dated 03.09.2021, sanctioned the appointment of the petitioners in the respective field in which their seniors and predecessors have been engaged to perform.

1.2. On 05.06.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 3. This Court granted an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P3 for a period of one month. In the order dated 05.06.2023, this Court noticed that petitioners 1 and 2 have proficiency in Chengila and Veekan Chenda. By Ext.P3, they are required to learn Ashtapathi and other Art forms also. It is not evident from the pleadings or documents that a person, who is appointed as Sambandhi to perform one or two Art forms, is expected to learn all other temple Art forms also. This is a matter to be examined. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

1.3. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit dated 20.09.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) documents.

W.P(C) No.24980 of 2023 is one filed by a devotee of Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swamy Temple, seeking writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13 order dated 20.03.2022 of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore Devaswom Board to the extent Complaint No.189 of 2022 filed by the petitioner is closed on the ground that the advisory jurisdiction of the learned Ombudsman will not extent to service matters. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P14 order of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Board on the request for review in Complaint No.189 of 2022; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to implement the suggestions made by the 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner in Ext.P10 report dated 06.01.2023; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to codify the rituals/kshethra acharams according to the prevailing practices in Vadavathur Sree Krishna Swami Temple and to see that the same is followed without any compromise; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to verify and assure that the Kshethra Sambandhis appointed at the temples as hereditary right holders have expertise and knowledge in the rituals/kshetra acharams and they are proficient in using the temple instruments.

2.1. On 02.08.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 4. The 5th respondent entered appearance through counsel. The 1st respondent Board and the 5th respondent were directed to file counter affidavit within ten days.

2.2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 08.08.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R5(A) to R5(F) documents. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit dated 20.09.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(f) documents. Thereafter, the 5th respondent has filed an additional affidavit dated 30.10.2023.

DBP No.48 of 2023 is one registered suo motu, vide proceedings dated 16.06.2023, based on a complaint dated 03.06.2023 made by the Temple Advisory Committee of Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swamy Temple in which certain allegations are made against ‘Karanma Sambhandhis’.

3.1. On 02.08.2023, when this DBP came up for admission, it was ordered to be listed, along with W.P.(C)Nos.17732 and 24980 of 2023.

3.2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 01.07.2023, producing therewith Annexures R2(a) to R2(h) documents. The 6th respondent has filed an affidavit dated 27.07.2023, producing therewith Annexures R6(a) to R6(c) documents. By the order dated 21.07.2023, the ‘Karanma Sambhandhis’ in Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swamy Temple, who are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.17732 of 2023, were suo motu impleaded as additional respondents 7 and 8 in this DBP.

In the above writ petitions and the DBP, this Court passed various orders. On 09.10.2023, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board to make available for the perusal of this Court Pathivu Register of Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swamy Temple.

On 07.11.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court Pathivu Register of Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swamy Temple and also the bill book. As per the entries made in page No.102 of the bill book, Sri.M.K.Rajan, who is the father of the 5th respondent, who was a Sambanthi in the Temple in question, was paid allowance for Idakka and Thimila for the period from October 1988 till September 1989. Similarly, Sri.Sankara Panicker, who is the father of Midhun, who was also a Sambanthi in the Temple, was paid allowance for Beken Chenda for the said period.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the Board and its officials, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the respective counsel for the party respondents.

Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act, substituted by the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, Part I of the Act shall extend to Travancore, Part II of the Act shall extend to Cochin and Part III of the Act shall extend to the whole of the State of Kerala, excluding the Malabar District.

Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. Section 16 of the Act deals with supervision and control by the Board. As per Section 16, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department.

Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. As per Section 31, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage.

Section 31A of the Act deals with the formation of the Temple Advisory Committees. As per sub-section (1) of Section 31A of the Act, a Committee for each temple in the name ‘Temple Advisory Committee’ (name of the temple) may be constituted in order to ensure participation of Hindu devotees. As per sub-section (2) of Section 31A, the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under sub-section (1) may be approved by the Board. As per sub-section (3) of Section 31A, the composition of an Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Board, not inconsistent with any practice prevailing, if any. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board framed Rules for the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Board.

Section 28 of the Act deals with the control of Travancore Devaswom Board over Karanma services. As per sub-section (1) of Section 28, the Board shall have absolute control over the holders of all Karanma service and also over all the properties, Thiruppuvarams and other emoluments attached thereto. As per sub-section (2) of Section 28, whenever it is reported that owing to incompetency, negligence or other cause, any Karanma service is not being regularly performed, or that an alienation of Karanma service or of the property, Thiruppuvaram or other emolument attached thereto, has been effected by the Karanma holder or by any member or members of the Karanma family, the Board shall give due notice of the charge to the head of the family and the next senior member, and also to such other members of the Karanma family as the said Board may deem necessary, and if after hearing their objections, if any, the Board is satisfied that there has been an alienation of the Karanma service of the property or of the Thiruppuvaram or of the other emoluments attached thereto or that there has been a failure to perform the service properly or regularly, the Board shall suspend, remove, determine, cancel or deal with in any other manner the Karanma right of the family to the service.

On behalf of the Temple Advisory Committee of Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swami Temple, the 6th respondent in DBP No.48 of 2023, an affidavit dated 27.07.2023 has been filed, producing therewith Annexures R6(a) to R6(c) documents. In the said affidavit it is stated that the right to perform the duties of three Karaima Sambandhies in the temple is with Murickanattu family, Mannakkunnathu family and Thudanthil family. Murickanattu family has the Karima right to perform ‘Abhisheka Kottu’ in the temple with the instrument ‘Thimila’ at the time of ‘Nirmalyam’ in the morning every day and to perform ‘Kottipadi Seva’ every day at the time of poojas, by reciting ‘Ashtapathi’ and playing the instrument ‘Edakka’ when the sanctum sanctorum is closed for poojas every day. The additional 7th respondent Reeja is the Karaima nominee of Murickanttu family for performing these duties in the temple from March 2022 onwards. She is not reciting ‘Ashtapathi’ and has no knowledge in playing the instrument ‘Edakka’ at the time when the sanctum sanctorum is closed for poojas. She is inexperienced in using the instrument ‘Thimila’ to perform ‘Abhisheka Kottu’ at the time of ‘Nirmalyam’. The annual festival of the temple is for 8 days commencing from the month of “Meenam” (March/April) every year. ‘Ulsavabali’ is to be performed on all days except the first and the last day of the annual festival. The instrument ‘Marapani’ is to be played by the nominee of Murikanattu family at the time of ‘Ulsavabali’ in the temple. In the affidavit, it is alleged that the additional 7th respondent Reeja has deputed a person from outside the family to play the instrument ‘Marapani’ at the time of Ulsavabali in the temple. Mannakunnath family has karaima right to carry out ‘Sankuvili’ at the time of the poojas in the temple. The family has the karaima right to play ‘Veekan Chenda’ at the time of ‘Seeveli’ in the temple. Midhun Mohan is the nominee of the Mannakunnathu family to perform ‘Sankuvili’ in the temple when the sanctum sanctorum is opened after the poojas of the temple. He is inexperienced and has no knowledge of playing ‘Veekan Chenda’ at the time of ‘Seeiveli’ in the temple. Thundathil family has the karaima right to perform ‘Chengila’ at the time of the poojas of the temple. They also have the right to play the instrument ‘kaimani’ at the time of ‘Seeiveli’ in the temple. T.Arjun Marar is the nominee of the Thundathil family for performing ‘Chengila’ at the time of poojas in the temple. He has no knowledge or experience of playing the instrument ‘chengila’ at the time of poojas in the temple.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials, respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C)No.17732 of 2023, it is stated that, in the report dated 13.09.2023 of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, it is stated that, as per the custom and practice prevailed in Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swami Temple, it is the responsibility of the Karaima families, namely, Murickanttu, Thundathil and Mannakunnath to perform and manage all temple arts, which are essential for daily rituals, monthly rituals and other periodical festivals. As per the report, no particular temple art is seen entrusted with any family of the Karaima families. Therefore, all Karaima Sambanthies are supposed to perform all necessary temple arts, without any classification. Rajan, the predecessor of Reeja, who belongs to Murickanttu family was receiving allowance for ‘Idakka’ and ‘Thimila’ and Sankara Panicker, the predecessor of Midhun Mohan, who belongs to Mannakunnath family was receiving allowance for ‘‘Veekan Chenda’, as evident from Ext.R1(a) bill book, for the period up to September, 1989.

The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by Reeja, the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.24980 of 2023, is that the performances and rituals referred to in paragraph 8 of the writ petition might have been there in the temple many decades ago and she does not have any knowledge of such performances. She cannot be held responsible for the absence of such rituals and performances. The resurrection of those extinct rituals in the temple can be done only by providing training in such arts and instruments, at the expense and cost of the Board. Though her family was entrusted with ‘Chengila’ alone she was forced to perform ‘Thimila’ and ‘Edakka’. ‘Ashtapathi’ and ‘Soapana Sageetham’ are alien to her family and traditionally they are conferred with the task of ‘Chengila’ alone. As evident from Ext.P2 representation, Murickanattu family is vested with the Karanma right of ‘Chengila’ alone.

As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 290], in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, in view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the temples under its management are performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. Subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of Devaswoms and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in the temples according to the usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section(3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage. The law laid down in the said decision was reiterated in Rajalekshmi P. v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 491].

Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swami Temple is a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In view of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have a statutory duty to see that regular traditional rights and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in that temple are performed promptly and to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board and its officials have a statutory duty to manage the properties and affairs of the said temple and arrange for the conduct of daily worship and ceremonies and also the festivals in that temple, according to its usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swami Temple, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage.

As already noticed hereinbefore, Rajan, the predecessor of Reeja, who belongs to Murickanttu family was receiving allowance for ‘Idakka’ and ‘Thimila’ and Sankara Panicker, the predecessor of Midhun Mohan, who belongs to Mannakunnath family was receiving allowance for ‘‘Veekan Chenda’, as evident from Ext.R1(a) bill book, for the period up to September, 1989.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petitions and the DBP, by directing the Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board to take a decision on the dispute raised in these proceedings as to the duties that have to be performed regularly by the ‘Karanma Sambhandhis’ of Major Vadavathur Sree Krishan Swami Temple, deputed by the senior most member of Murickanattu family, Mannakunnathu family and Thundathil family, with notice to the petitioners and the party respondents in the respective writ petitions and DBP and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. While taking such a decision, the Devaswom Commissioner shall take note of the statutory duty of the Travancore Devaswom Board under Sections 15A and 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.

It would be open to both sides to submit written submissions before the Devaswom Commissioner, along with supporting materials. The Devaswom Commissioner shall pass a ‘reasoned order’, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. In view of the aforesaid direction, the legality or otherwise of Ext.P3 and P3(a) notices, which are under challenge in W.P.(C)No.17732 of 2023 need not be considered in these proceedings, which is left open. Similarly the challenge made in W.P.(C)No.24980 of 2023 on Ext.P13 and P14 orders dated 20.03.2022 and 11.04.2023 of the learned Ombudsman is also left open. The Devaswom Commissioner shall pass an order, as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time, the interim order of stay granted in W.P.(C)No.17732 of 2023 shall continue to be in force.