THARAMEL KRISHNAN Vs. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kerala is justly famous for its numerous temples, churches, mosques and synagogues which exist side by side in perfect amity and mutual respect, catering to the spiritual needs of all sections of people belonging to different religious persuasions. Foremost amongst the Hindu Shrines in the State is the Sreekrishna Temple at Guruvayoor to which there is an incessant flow of many thousands of pilgrims from all parts of India throughout the year.

(2.) In 1971 the Kerala State Legislature enacted the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1971 (Act 6 of 1971), hereinafter called the Act, avowedly to make provision for the proper administration of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The petitioner, a Hindu, claiming to be a worshipper of the Guruvayoor Temple has filed this petition both in his individual capacity as well as in his capacity as the President of the Malabar Pradesh Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi which is a society registered under Societies Registration Act and having as its objects inter alia the reconstruction and renovation of Hindu temples which are in ruins, the adoption of necessary measures to ensure that temples are managed properly and administered correctly and the reorganisation and rejuvenation of Hindu society so as to enthuse in them proper interest in temple worship, rites and rituals. Permission has also been granted to the petitioner by this Court under O.1 R.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to institute and maintain this writ petition in a representative capacity on behalf of the entire denomination consisting of the large section of the Hindu public having faith in temple worship and who are vitally interested in seeing that the affairs of the temple are administered in accordance with its customs and traditions and that its properties and funds are not diverted for purposes unconnected with the temple or with Hindu religious practices. The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are that this Court should declare the Act and the Guruvayoor Devaswom (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act 28 of 1972) and more particularly S.3, 4, 5(3)(a), 5(5), 6, 11, 14, 18, 20, 24(3)(f), 25 and 32(1) of the Act and S.2, 3 and 4 of Act 28 of 1972 as unconstitutional and void on the ground of contravention of Art.14 and 26 of the Constitution of India. There is also a prayer in the Original Petition that Resolution No. 31 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee (1st respondent) constituted under S.3 of the Act Ext. P1 resolving to grant a donation of Rs. 50, 000/-from the temple funds to the "one lakh housing scheme" of the State Government is illegal and invalid. A further relief sought in the Writ petition is that this Court should declare that the Renovation Executive Committee constituted or recognised under S.32 of the Act is an illegally constituted body and that it has no legal authority to perform any acts in relation to the temple.

(3.) Before we proceed to set out in detail the contentions put forward by the petitioner in support of his challenge against the provisions of the enactments it will be convenient to narrate in brief the prior history relating to the administration of the Guruvayoor Temple. It is admitted on all sides that the Ooraima right over the Temple was hereditarily vested jointly in the Zamorin Raja of Calicut and Karanavan for the time being of the Mallisseri Illom at Guruvayoor. This fact is expressly recognised and specifically mentioned in the preamble to the Act. That the Ooraimaship was vested jointly in the Zamorin Raja and the Karanavan of the Mallisseri Illam had also been declared by the Madras High Court in its judgment dated 1st November, 1889 in Appeal No. 35 of 1887. In the year 1926 the Madras Legislature passed the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and it came into force on the 8th February, 1927. Shortly thereafter some of the worshippers of the temple filed a petition before the Hindu Religions Endowments Board constituted under the said Act complaining against alleged mismanagement of the affairs of the Temple by the hereditary trustees. On that petition the Board started an enquiry which finally resulted in a scheme of administration being settled for the Temple under S.63(1) of the said Act. Under that scheme the Board totally disregarded the rights of the Mallisseri Nambudiri to function as the hereditary trustee of the Temple and entrusted the day-to-day management of the institution solely to the Zamorin Raja as hereditary trustee subject to certain conditions regarding supervision by officers of the Board and other similar safeguards. The Karanavan of the Mallisseri Illam instituted O.S. No. 1 of 1929 in the District Court of South Malabar at Calicut under S.63(4) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 to amend the scheme settled by the Board by recognising his due position as joint Ooralan of the Devaswom: The worshippers on whose petition the scheme had been framed by the Board instituted O. S. No. 2 of 1929 in the same Court contending that "the Board had not incorporated sufficient safeguards in the scheme for ensuring the proper management of the institution and praying that the scheme should be amended by making provision for the appointment of additional non hereditary trustees and placing the management in the hands of a Board of five trustees, three of whom were to be nominated by the Board. The District Court upheld the claim of Mallisseri Nambudiri to be a joint hereditary trustee of the Temple along with the Zamorin Raja and certain amendments were made in the scheme of administration settled by the Board, both for the purpose of providing for joint management by the Nambudiri and Zamorin Raja as cotrustees and also for inserting further safeguards to ensure good administration of the institution. Against the said decision of the District Court the Zamorin Raja filed A. S. Nos. 211 and 212 of 1930 before the Madras High Court. Those appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench as per an elaborate judgment dated 2Ist November, 1930. The learned Judges confirmed the decree of the District Court in so far as it recognised the right of Mallisseri Nambudiri to function as joint Ooralan (hereditary trustee; of the Temple and the modification effected in the scheme in this regard was upheld. Dealing with the provisions contained in the scheme settled by the Board which had been modified in certain respects by the District Court on the basis of the contentions put forward by the worshippers that the public was dissatisfied with the management of the Temple and that there was a considerable body of feeling that the administration of the institution should not be left in the hands of the hereditary trustees without adequate and stringent safeguards, the learned Judges of the Division Bench while confirming the decision of the District Judge declining to make provision in the scheme for the appointment of three non hereditary trustees, incorporated certain additional safeguards in the scheme with intent to enable the worshippers to maintain a close and effective watch on the manner of administration of the Devaswom by the trustees. One of the new provisions so incorporated in the scheme was that a public notice intimating the date and time of opening of the Bhandarams should be put up by. the trustees sufficiently in advance so that those amongst the worshippers who cared to be present may attend at the time of the opening and it was also made obligatory that the entries regarding the cash, jewellery etc. found as the contents of the Bhandarams should be attested at least by two of such members of the worshipping public.