SUNDARA RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The central issue arising in these two connected WP (C)s is whether the younger brother of the last Ruler of Travancore could after the death of the last Ruler on 20/07/1991 claim to be the 'Ruler of Travancore' within the meaning of that term contained in S.18(2) of the Travancore - Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the TC Act') to claim ownership, control and management of the ancient and great Temple in Kerala namely, the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple located at Trivandrum.

(2.) Briefly stated, all the temples which were under the control and management of the erstwhile Princely States of Travancore and Cochin, after merger of the two Princely States went under the control of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. However, under the Agreement of Accession signed between the two Princely States represented by the kings with the Government of India as a party, which came into force with effect from 01/08/1949, the administration of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple was 'vested in trust' in the Ruler of Travancore. Travancore - Cochin became a Part B State under the Constitution until the State was reorganised in 1956 to form Kerala State. The TC Act was enacted after the commencement of the Constitution and in the said Act, the provisions of the Accession Agreement relating to Padmanabha Swami Temple were incorporated in Chap.3. It is by virtue of the Covenant in the Accession Agreement and later by operation of S.18(2) of the TC Act, the management of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple continued to be vested in Trust in the last Ruler of Travancore. By the Constitution (Twenty Sixth) Amendment Act, 1971, the privy purses, privileges and other special rights of the erstwhile Rulers of Indian States were abolished by deleting Art.291 and Art.362 and by incorporating a new provision namely, Art.366(22) in the Constitution. Even though the Twenty Sixth Amendment to the Constitution was made effective from 28/12/1971, the challenge against the validity of the Amendment was repelled and the Amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court vide judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench only on 04/02/1993 in Raghunathrao Ganapatrao v. Union of India reported in 1994 KHC 561 : 1994 Supp (1) SCC 191 : AIR 1993 SC 1267 . The last Ruler of Travancore died during pendency of the cases before the Supreme Court and until his death on 20/07/1991 he continued to manage the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple by virtue of powers conferred on him under S.18(2) of the TC Act. Even though there is no 'Ruler' in Travancore under the substituted definition of Art.366(22) after the death of the last Ruler and consequently the Ruler of Travancore referred to in S.18(2) of the TC Act could be only the State, it allowed the management of the Padmanabha Swamy Temple to be taken over and retained by the brother of the last Ruler after the latter's death. The legality and propriety of the take over of control of the Great Temple by the brother of the deceased last Ruler and the future of the Temple are the issues to be decided herein.

(3.) Public resentment started when the last Ruler's brother, the first petitioner in WP (C) No. 4256/2010, who after the last Ruler's death took over the control and management of the Temple, arranged to take photographs of the treasures of the Temple and made a claim which was published in the Malayalam Daily 'Kerala Koumudi' on 15/09/2007 stating that the treasures of the Padmanabha Swamy Temple are the family properties of the erstwhile Royal Family of Travancore. Several devotees approached Civil Courts in Trivandrum filing Suits for declaration and for injunction against those who are in control and management of the Temple and in one of the cases the Sub Court after hearing all the parties including the Temple Employees' Union which also opposes the present management, granted injunction against opening of treasure rooms (Kallaras) of the Temple. Even though an appeal filed against the injunction order is pending before the District Court, the injunction is said to be still in force. While so, the deceased last Ruler's brother with the Executive Officer of the Temple appointed by him also as a petitioner filed WP (C) No. 4256/2010 before this Court essentially under Art.228 of the Constitution of India for calling for all the cases pending before the Subordinate Civil Courts and for declaring that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the matter or in the alternative, to issue appropriate orders declaring the entitlement of the petitioners to run the Temple. WP (C) No. 36487/2009 is filed by an Advocate of the Supreme Court who is a devotee and a close by resident of the Great Temple at Trivandrum, challenging the authority of the last Ruler's brother and the Executive Officer appointed by him to run the Temple and the main prayer in that WP (C) is for issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto against the Executive Officer, who according to the petitioner, was appointed by the last Ruler's brother without any authority whatsoever. We have heard Sri. M. Balagovindan, counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 36487/2009, Sri. K. Ramachandran, counsel appearing for the last Ruler's brother, Senior Advocate Sri. S. V. Balakrishna Iyer appearing for the Executive Officer, the Government Pleader for the State which is also a party in these proceedings and also in the Suits pending before the lower Courts. Detailed argument notes are also filed by these parties. The Temple has over 200 permanent employees and the Temple Employees' Union is also impleaded as additional respondent in both the WP (C)s. The Union is supporting the case of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 36487/2009 and they also contend that after the death of the last Ruler of Travancore, first petitioner in WP (C) No. 4256/2010 has no legal right to claim the control or management of the Temple. The Employees' Union has also raised an allegation that the Temple is mismanaged. An additional respondent impleaded in WP (C) No. 36487/2009 (IA No. 15415/2010) supported the case of the other respondents by attributing motives on the petitioner. We have heard Senior Advocate Sri. K. Ramakumar appearing for the said respondent.