No.

635 – 5 August 2020

The Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Case:

Landmark Ruling by the Indian Supreme Court
Vinod Rai

Summary

In a landmark judgement on 13 July 2020, the Indian Supreme Court overturned the Kerala
High Court verdict which had ordered that the present ‘Maharaja’ could not automatically
step into the shoes of the last ruler and, therefore, could not claim management rights over
Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple. In its verdict, the Supreme Court recognised the Covenant
signed in 1949 between the Travancore-Cochin state and the Union of India and permitted
the present descendants of the then-ruling family to continue its involvement in the
management of the temple. There is now debate on the likelihood of this verdict impacting
other similarly taken-over temples and it being tested against Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution.

Introduction

The Supreme Court verdict, overturning the 2011 High Court judgement in the Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple case, is indeed a landmark one and may have significant
political repercussions in time to come. For a better appreciation of the judgement and its
perceived ramifications for temples in the country, it will be useful to briefly delve into the
history of the temple and its connection with the ruling family of Travancore.

Origins of the Temple

There is no written evidence of when Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple was established.

Historians assert that the shrine finds reference in Tamil literature of the Sangam period
between 500 BC and 300 AD. Lord Padmanabha Swamy is the presiding deity of the
Travancore royal family. On 17 January 1750, Anizham Thirunal Marthanda Varma, the then-
Maharaja of Travancore surrendered the kingdom of Travancore to Lord Padmanabha
Swamy.1 In doing so, he pledged that he and his descendants would be vassals or agents of
the deity and would serve the kingdom as Padmanabha Dasa (slave). Since then, the name
of every Travancore king is preceded by the title ‘Sree Padmanabha Dasa’. This effectively
made the deity the ruler of the kingdom and all agreements or treaties were entered into by
the Padmanabhadasa as the representative of the deity.2 It is considered that the temple in
its present sprawling architectural splendour is his creation. The system of the Travancore

1
Temples of Kerala – Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple. [Link]
Temples-of—[Link].
2
Vinod Rai, “Temple Administration”, in Rethinking Good Governance – Holding to Account India’s Public
Institutions, Rupa Publications, 2019.

1
king managing the temple continued during the period of the last ‘recognised’3 ruler, Sri
Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, from 1931 to 1949.

In 1949, an Instrument of Accession was signed with the Indian Union. This instrument
integrated the princely states of Travancore and Cochin into one, bringing Travancore-
Cochin as a Part B state under the Constitution. Article VIII of the Covenant guaranteed to
the Ruler of the Travancore state, Shri Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, and his successors
the right to control and manage Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple. In 1950, the Travancore
Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1950 (the Act), which is the legislation that applies to
administration of temples in Kerala by the Devaswom Boards, that is, religious endowment
boards, came into force. Chapter III (Sections 18-23) of the Act specifically deals with Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple and expressly codified the rights guaranteed under Article VIII
of the Covenant and used the term ‘Ruler’ to refer to the head of the Travancore Royal
Family. Under Sections 18-23, the Ruler is empowered to administer the temple through an
Executive Officer appointed by him, with the advice of a three-member Advisory Committee
nominated by him.4 In June 1965, the Maharaja registered ‘The Sree Padmanabhaswamy
Temple Trust’, a public religious trust with the sole objective of administering and meeting
the expenses of the temple connected with the daily puja, festivals, repairs, expenses on
staff, etc. This trust had the Maharaja as the chairman and four others as members.

Legal Challenge to the Royal Family’s Right

In 2007, advocate Ananda Padmanabhan filed a lawsuit on behalf of two devotees against
the temple administration for mismanaging the temple and pleaded that the government
appoint new trustees to manage the deity’s wealth. The lawsuit was allowed by a
Trivandrum lower court, which ordered the government to take over the temple and its
possessions. However, the royal family contested the verdict in the Kerala High Court on the
grounds that for centuries, it had traditionally presided over the temple administration and
protected its possessions.

In 2011, the Kerala High Court, by a common judgement on a writ petition filed by the
successor of the last ruler, held that the petitioner, Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma,
the then-Maharaja, or any successor of his family, could not claim control or management
of the temple under Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act,
1950, after the death of the last ruler. The Court thus maintained that the petitioner did not
automatically step into the shoes of the last ruler and, therefore, could not claim
management rights over the temple under the provisions of the Act.

Disposing of the appeal filed by the royal family, the Kerala High Court issued a direction to
the state government to immediately take steps to constitute a body corporate or Trust or
other legal authority to take over control of the temple, its assets and management, and to
run it in accordance with the traditions hitherto followed. Aggrieved by this judgement of

3
Recognised in the sense that the privy purses had not been abolished and the King was still the rightful
ruler.
4
J Sai Deepak, “For God’s Sake”, Open the Magazine, 17 July 2020. [Link]
for-gods-sake-3/.

2
the Kerala High Court, the Maharaja and the then-Executive Officer of the temple filed two
special leave petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court.

Significance of the Supreme Court Ruling

It is this judgement of the Kerala High Court on which the Supreme Court adjudicated. The
Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and made the following salient
observations:

1. The High Court’s order is based on the recognition of the fact that the temple and its
assets are not owned by the royal family and that Article VIII of the Covenant
establishes a special relationship of Shebait5 (Dharam Karta) between the royal
family and the deity. This special relationship was acknowledged by the Union
government at the time of accession. Hence, the family continued to enjoy the right
not because of its being a ‘royal family’ but because of its lineage of having been the
custodian for centuries.

2. This relationship is independent of any title that was bestowed on the royal family
which granted it any privileges. The shebaitship was pre-existing the Privy Purse
abolition (26th Amendment of the Constitution.) The amendment abolished the titles
and the privileges attached to it and had no bearing on the special relationship.

3. The High Court has laid emphasis on the fact that Article VIII of the Covenant
specifically forms the basis of Chapter III (Sections 18-23) of the Act of 1950 which
details the administration of the temple. The High Court has recognised the fact that
the purpose of providing a chapter in the Act was to ensure that the rights
guaranteed by Article VIII of the Covenant are protected and guaranteed to the ruler
and his successors even after the signatory passes away and India converts to a
Republic. It was in acknowledgement of this right that even the government of
Kerala, which made many amendments to the Act of 1950, did not tamper with the
rights granted to the ruler(s) even after the death of the signatory to the covenant.

4. Thus, Chapter III remains as it was originally signed in 1950 keeping secure the rights
of the ruler and his successors as it was determined in Article VIII of the Covenant.

In light of the considerations of the aforementioned special characteristics of the

relationship between the deity and its custodians (the rulers), the Supreme Court set aside
the directions of the High Court and laid down a two-tier administrative structure for the
Temple with:

1. Decisions relating to all policy matters shall be taken by the ruler or head of the
Travancore royal family, who shall be advised by a three-member advisory body. The
5
A Shebait is any person who serves and supports the deity and works as a manager of the debutter
property. The properties like the temple or any other land or property which is vested with the deity are
managed by the Shebait. [Link]
dedicated-to-deity/#:~:text=Meaning%.
3
 three persons are to be a retired High Court judge (to chair the Advisory Committee),
an eminent person to be nominated by the ruler and a chartered accountant to be
nominated by the chair in consultation with the ruler. The advice of this committee
is to be binding on the ruler.
2. An administrative committee comprising five members who shall exercise the
powers of administration. The members will be the district judge, a nominee of the
ruler, one each of the Union and state governments and the chief thantri (priest).
The powers of the administrative committee are also subject to the control and
supervision of the ruler.

The Supreme Court has thus restored the pre-eminent position of the ruling family and even
laid down that expenditure decisions exceeding ₹15 lakhs (S$27,500) per month or ₹1 crore
(S$183,000) at one time, change in the standard operations of the temple, etc., can be
undertaken only with the prior approval of the ruler.

It is evident from the verdict that the Supreme Court did not go into the fundamental right
of religious freedom granted under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Whilst arguments
were raised before the bench on this aspect, the Supreme Court took the stand that since
such arguments were not raised in the proceedings before the High Court, it would not go
into it. Thus, the strength in the order for the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple case is
premised on the claim of shebaitship by the ruling family and not ownership or title of the
temple and its assets (which are owned by the deity from 1750).

It is now being argued that similarly placed temples taken over by the state earlier may have
a case to seek review of the takeover orders. However, there may be very few similarly
placed cases. The administrative machinery prescribed by the Supreme Court has definitely
offered solace to the Hindus of the area as compared to other famous shrines such as the
Vaishno Devi Shrine in Jammu, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam in Andhra Pradesh,
Jagannath Temple in Puri and Guruvayur Temple in Kerala itself, which have been taken
over by the government. These devotees saw a secular state (in fact, in the present case, an
atheist communist party managed the devaswom department of the government) managing
the temple as a kind of impiety of the temple.

The Likely Conundrum

Two schools of thought are gaining ground in the context of this verdict. Firstly, it is being
argued that in the light of the recognition granted by the Court to the perpetual validity of
Article VIII of the Covenant, it would have a bearing in cases where the state has taken over
temples elsewhere under similar circumstances.6 The second argument is that the
administrative structure decreed by the Supreme Court will be tested against the rights
guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26. It is felt that on this score, the verdict stands fragile.

With regard to the first argument, it needs to be recognised that three specific aspects of
Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple swung the decision in the favour of the ruler. First, as early
6
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “PB Mehta writes: Padmanabhaswamy case turns on specific facts, but there are
wider political ramifications”, The Indian Express, 21 July 2020. [Link]
columns/padmanabhaswamy-case-kerala-pb-mehta-6515406/.
4
as the 18th century itself (1750), the ruler had vested the ownership and title of the temple
and all its assets to the deity and merely took on the role of a shebait. Thus, to that extent
the temple ceased to be a property of the Maharaja and offerings received by the deity
were ploughed back into the temple itself. Second, there is also the fact that in 1965, the
ruler constituted a Public Trust and handed over even the management to that Trust (in
which he continued to be a member). The third and most powerful argument was the
predominance given to Article VIII of the Covenant even in the Act of 1950 which treated
this temple on a different legal edifice from the others. The last of these arguments makes a
very strong case for this verdict not being used as a legal basis for reopening the takeover of
temples in other states, particularly neighbouring Tamil Nadu.

It may be recalled that in the recent judgement of the Sabarimala Temple, the Supreme
Court had taken a stand to permit access to ladies even in the age group of 10 to 50 years,
much against the traditions of the temple. Now, in the present verdict, a secular country
could be seen to be permitting the state (Union and state government nominees) and
indeed even the court (district judge) to be direct players in managing the affairs of the
temple by being members of the administrative committee. This could be seen as violative
of the spirit of secularism and Article 25 of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of
practicing any religion. It may also be seen to be violative of Article 26, which guarantees
the freedom to manage religious affairs to every religious denomination, by its decree of
inserting state and judicial nominees in the management. These issues are likely to be
debated when the Sabarimala Temple case comes up for review by a nine-judge bench
constitutional bench.

It appears that this verdict of the Supreme Court may not be the final word, though the
state government has decided not to appeal against the judgement. It remains to be seen
what the Constitution bench has to say on the perceived infringement of Articles 25 and 26
of the Constitution as arguments on that aspect are likely to be raised in the Sabarimala
Temple case.

.....

Mr Vinod Rai is a Distinguished Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an
autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore (NUS). He is a former Comptroller and
Auditor General of India. He can be contacted at isasvr@[Link]. The author bears full responsibility for the
facts cited and opinions expressed in this paper.