P V MURALEEDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA

respondents 2 and 3, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 9 and the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8.

6. Section 14 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, deals with Temple Advisory Committee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 14, for the purpose of ensuring the adequate participation of Hindu devotees, a committee may be constituted for each temple in the name "(name of the temple) Temple Advisory Committee", not inconsistent with the existing custom and practices. As per sub- section (2) of Section 14, the Temple Advisory Committees formed under sub-section (1) shall be approved by the Board. As per sub- W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 7 section (2) of Section 14, the composition of a Temple Advisory Committee under sub-section (1) shall be in such manner as may be prescribed.

7. In Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Kshethrodharana Samithi and another v. Malabar Devaswom Board and other [2013 (3) KHC 849] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the challenge made against Section 14 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 as substituted by Amending Act 31 of 2008, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Rules, 2009 inserting ’the Rules under Section 14(3)’ and Circular No. HRJ 1-5144/2009 dated 03.08.2009 issued by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. This Court held that the object sought to be achieved by the constitution of Temple Advisory Committees provided in the opening part of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act is for ensuring the adequate participation of Hindu devotees. While sub-section (1) of Section 14 provides for the participation of Hindu devotees, Rule 2 provides for nomination from among locally residing Hindu persons having interest in the affairs of the temple. The impugned Section 14 and the impugned Rules are so made that they insulate the maintenance of existing customs and practices of each temple. The W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 8 constitution of a Temple Advisory Committee shall not be inconsistent with the existing customs and practices. This is the dictate of sub-section (1) of Section 14.

7.1. The Division Bench noticed that the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules, including the impugned amendments to the Act and Rules, are made in such a manner that the administration of the institution by the hereditary trustee or the trustees is never intended to be impaired, except in cases where it becomes necessary to remove the hereditary trustee or the trustees or appoint non-hereditary trustees or to frame a scheme for the purpose of the temple in question. Insofar as involvement in a Temple Advisory Committee under the impugned Rules and Section 14 of the Act is concerned, one has to be not merely a Hindu but a Hindu person having interest in the affairs of the temple, thereby meaning that such person should be one who would fall within the definition of the term ’person having interest’ in Section 6(11)(b) of the Act. This means that only a person, who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat, can be included as a member of a Temple Advisory Committee. The scheme of the W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 9 Act and the Rules framed thereunder not only insulates the authority of the hereditary trustee or the trustees to preserve and have matters of religion in a temple in terms of such customs, practices and usages, it gives no room for any authority to interfere with that. The statutory prescription to visit and remove or modify the office of a trustee is itself circumscribed to the effect that such exercise could be only to ensure the management in terms of the customs and practices. It is not to obviate or to be in derogation thereof. Such being the statutory situs and setting of the impugned Section 14 of the Act and the impugned Rules, the Division Bench found no ground to hold that those provisions are unconstitutional. Equally, on the face of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and the general rule-making power, as contained in Section 100 of the Act, the Division Bench repelled the challenge to the impugned Rules that it is in excess of the rule-making power under the Act.

7.2. The Division Bench noticed that unlike the Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and the manner of management of the different temples falling under the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board; insofar as the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is concerned, many of the temples are autonomous bodies W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 10 administered in terms of the schemes framed either by the Deputy Commissioner or earlier by the District Court and the control of the Malabar Devaswom Board over such institutions in terms of the provisions of the Madras Act is only supervisory. Even in relation to temples where a scheme is not framed, but the establishment continues to be under the control of a hereditary trustee or trustees, the legal status of that institution does not become anything different. With this in view, the Division Bench considered the plea that the terms of the circular are in excess of the authority and sweep of Section 14 of the Act and the impugned Rules and it has been issued beyond the authority of the Commissioner.

7.3. The Division Bench noticed that Section 8B of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which empowers the Malabar Devaswom Board to assume the direct management of any religious institution provided the trustees request the Board to take over its management unconditionally. Except in cases where direct administration is so assumed, the statutory authority under the Madras Act would remain regulatory and supervisory to the entire extent as provided by the different provisions of that Act. Reverting to the impugned circular, the Division Bench found that the provisions thereof, if operated, would be a parallel administrative mechanism whereby the matters relating to W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 11 different aspects of the temple, including festivals, etc., would essentially be under the control of such Temple Advisory Committees. Recalling sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, it is clear that the Statute never contemplated any such authority with the Temple Advisory Committees. The provision was only intended to ensure adequate participation of Hindu devotees, not inconsistent with the existing customs and practices. The purpose of the participation of Hindu devotees as envisioned in sub-section (1) of Section 14 cannot be to create a managerial institution or a committee which will meddle with the affairs relating to the administration of the temple or any matter related thereto. Matters relating to customs, usages and practices include matters relating to festivals and organising different functions in connection with the rituals of the temple. Those are not matters which can be meddled with by the Temple Advisory Committees. The administration of the temple is clearly with the hereditary trustee or the trustees, as the case may be, except in cases of institutions which fall under Section 8B of the Act and of course those temples in relation to which the non-hereditary trustees or fit persons have been appointed. Going by sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, read with Rule 2 of the impugned Rules, the Temple Advisory Committees would merely be a committee of persons having W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 12 interest in the affairs of a temple, to ensure the adequate participation of Hindu devotees. Nothing beyond.

7.4. On the question as to whether the powers of the Commissioner to issue circulars include the power to issue any circular of the nature of the one impugned, the Division Bench noticed that the impugned circular does not quote any statutory authority. It merely refers to decision No.3 taken by the Board on

09.07.2009. Section 14 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act provides for Temple Advisory Committees and enjoins that the composition of a Temple Advisory Committee shall be in such manner as may be prescribed. The impugned Rules prescribe for nominations by the Malabar Devaswom Board. Such nominations are for members at clauses (c) to (e) of Rule 1 of the impugned Rules. While the power to prescribe the composition of a Temple Advisory Committee is left by the Act to be in terms of what may be prescribed, that Statute does not provide subordinate legislative power or regulatory executive authority to enumerate the powers, duties and functions of Temple Advisory Committees. The nature of duties and responsibilities fixed on the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer under the impugned circular essentially give them the authority to take donations from the public, issue receipts, maintain bank W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 13 accounts and get involved in different other aspects which are predominantly matters relating to the management of any establishment, whether it is religious or not. No such authority is seen available to a Temple Advisory Committee in terms of Section 14 of the Act or the impugned Rules. The insulation of the temple, its customs, usages, office of hereditary trustee or trustees from interference by the Temple Advisory Committees is one of the grounds on which the validity of Section 14 and the impugned Rules have been upheld hereinabove. The provisions in the impugned circular essentially run to the contrary; by enabling the Temple Advisory Committees to make recommendations to the temple authorities in matters relating to temple festivals, renovations, naveekaranakalasam and other special chatangukal (ritualistic functions) which have to be held from time to time. What has been done by the impugned circular is essentially to take away what stands protected in terms of the different statutory provisions as regards the office of the hereditary trustee or the trustees and their eligibility to regulate the customs, usages and practices and rituals in the temples. Therefore, the impugned circular invades the right of the hereditary trustee or the trustees to manage and administer a temple unless found in statutory proceedings to be liable to be removed from such office. The W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 14 Division Bench noticed that the manner in which nominations are to be made to the Temple Advisory Committees in terms of the impugned circular also tends to indicate that the criticism levelled by the petitioners, that the attempt is to infuse persons of the political choice of those in power, comments acceptance. The impugned circular goes beyond the limits of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and the impugned Rules, as noted above. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench held that the impugned circular is ultra vires the Act and the impugned Rules, therefore, arbitrary and liable to be declared as void and inoperative. The Division Bench allowed the writ petitions in part, quashing the impugned circular dated 03.08.2009 issued by the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board.

8. After the decision of the Division Bench in Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Kshethrodharana Samithi [2013 (3) KHC 849] quashing the impugned circular dated 03.08.2009, the formation of committees consisting of the devotees in temples which are controlled institutions of Malabar Devaswom Board, for the specific purpose of conducting festivals or renovation works are governed by the provisions contained in Circular No. HRH5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007 issued by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions (Administration) W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 15 Department. Clause (1) of the said circular reads thus; 1) ്ഷേത്ര്ങളിൽ ഉ്഼വാ്ഷ ാഷ്ങൾ, നവീകരണ ത്രവർ്ᩈന്ങൾ എ്ᩐിവ ന്ᩤരീരിയിൽ നട്ᩈു്ᩐരിനായി ആവശ്യമെ്ഝിൽ ഭ്വജന്ങമള ഉൾമെടു്ᩈിമകാ്ᩂ് ക്ᩜ്റി രൂരീകരികാവു്ᩐരാണ്. ഇ്ങമന രൂരീകരികു്ᩐ ക്ᩜ്റികൾ ്ഷേത്ര്ᩈിൽ യാമരാരു കാരണവശ്ാലുും ്ᩝിരൊയി ത്രവർ്ᩈികാൻ രാടു്ᩦര്ᩤ. ഒരു വർഷ്ഷ്ᩈ്ഷകാ അമ്ᩤ്ഝിൽ ഉ്ഷേശ്യലേയ്ങൾ രൂർ്ᩈീകരി്ചരിനു്ഷശ്ഷ്ഷൊ അമ്ᩤ്ഝിൽ ക്ᩜ്റിയുമട ത്രവർ്ᩈനും അവസാനിെികു്ᩐരിന് വകുെ് ക്ᩜീഷണർ ഉ്ᩈരവ് രുറമെടുവികുക്ഷയാ മെ്യു്ᩐരുവമര ഇരിൽ ഏരാണ് ആദ്യും വരിക, അര് കഴി്ᨼാൽ ക്ᩜ്റി രിരി്ചുവി്ഷട്ᩂരാണ്.” (underline supplied)

9. As held by the Division Bench in Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Kshethrodharana Samithi [2013 (3) KHC 849] the scheme of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules framed thereunder not only insulates the authority of the hereditary trustee or the trustees to preserve and have matters of religion in a temple in terms of such customs, practices and usages, it gives no room for any authority to interfere with that. Matters relating to customs, usages and practices include matters relating to festivals and organising different functions in connection with the rituals of the temple. Those are not matters which can be meddled with even by a committee consisting of the devotees, constituted under the provisions contained in Circular No. HRH5/8246/2006 dated

15.06.2007, for the specific purpose of conducting temple festivals. The administration of the temple is clearly with the hereditary trustee or the trustees, as the case may be, except in cases of W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 16 institutions which fall under Section 8B of the Act and of course those temples in relation to which the non-hereditary trustees or fit persons have been appointed.

10. In Hindu Seva Kendram v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (3) KHC 258], a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, held that the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board shall ensure strict compliance of the provisions contained in Circular No.HRH5/8246/ 2006 dated 15.06.2007 in the conduct of temple festivals in temples which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, in case the hereditary trustee or trustees, as the case may be, of the respective temple decides to constitute a committee to render necessary assistance to the temple administration for conducting temple festival. On the facts of the case on hand, this Court held that, in the absence of a committee consisting of the devotees, constituted under the provisions contained in Circular No. HRH5/8246/2006 dated 15.06.2007, the entire activities in connection with Pooram Festival of 2023 in Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathy Temple shall be conducted by the temple administration and ‘Pooram-2023 Sangadaka Samithi’ cannot meddle with any such matters.” W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 17

11. A temple festival has to be conducted in accordance with the custom, rituals and practices of a temple. Politics has no role to play in the conduct of daily worship and ceremonies and festivals in temples. See: Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 290]. Similarly, cultural or social activities unconnected with temple worship have no role to play in temple festivals.

12. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, the conclusion is irresistible that the 8th respondent Maha Sivarathri Maholsavam Aghosha Committee cannot, in any manner, meddle with the activities in Sree Perumthrikkovil Mahasiva Kshethram, in connection with Sivarathri Maholsavam or other festivals. Such a committee cannot publish notices like Ext.P1 in the name of Sree Perumthrikkovil Mahasiva Kshethram, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board. In the absence of a committee consisting of devotees, constituted under the provisions contained in Circular No.HRH5/8246/2006 dated

15.06.2007 of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions (Administration) Department, the entire activities in the temple in connection with Sivarathri Maholsavam or any other festival shall be conducted by the temple administration. Any W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 18 collection of money from the devotees or public, in the name of the temple, can only be made by the temple administration and not by a committee like the 8th respondent Maha Sivarathri Maholsavam Aghosha Committee. As already noticed, cultural or social activities unconnected with temple worship have no role to play in temple festivals. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of by making the interim order dated 06.03.2024 absolute. In the absence of a committee consisting of devotees, constituted under the provisions contained in Circular No.HRH5/8246/2006 dated

15.06.2007 of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions (Administration) Department, the entire activities in Sree Perumthrikkovil Mahasiva Kshethram in connection with Sivarathri Maholsavam or any other festival shall be conducted by the temple administration. Any collection of money from the devotees or public, either for the renovation of the temple or for the conduct of any festival shall be only by the temple administration and not by any committee like the 8th respondent. Cultural or social activities unconnected with temple worship shall not form part of the festivals in Sree Perumthrikkovil Mahasiva Kshethram. It is for the 3rd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 19 to take necessary steps to prevent the formation of such unauthorised committees in temples which are the controlled institutions under the Board, in connection with the festivals and other activities. The fact that the 8th respondent Maha Sivarathri Maholsavam Aghosha Committee collected money from the devotees and public for the renovation of Sree Perumthrikkovil Mahasiva Kshethram is evident from Ext.P1 notice. The 2nd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board is directed to obtain a report from the 9th respondent Executive Officer, through the concerned Assistant Commissioner, regarding collection of money by the Aghosha Committee from the devotees through G-pay No.9946199343, based on Ext.P1 notice. On receipt of such a report, the 2nd respondent Commissioner shall conduct an enquiry with notice to the petitioner, the Board of Trustees of the temple, the office bearers of the 8th respondent Maha Sivarathri Maholsavam Aghosha Committee and other affected parties, if any, and take an appropriate decision for recovering the amount collected through the aforesaid G-pay number from the public and devotees, which shall be credited into the account of the temple. A decision in this regard shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 3 W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 20 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE ACR W.P.(C)No.8248 of 2024 21 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.8248/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE MAHA SIVARATHRI MAHOLSAVAM AGHOSHA COMMITTEE