Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 – Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple – Constitution of Administrative Committee and Advisory Committee – A Note was given by the appellants about the composition an Administrative Committee and an Advisory Committee to take care of the affairs of the Temple – It was suggested, inter-alia, that the Administrative Committee shall consist of five members: a) a retired Indian Administrative Service Officer of the rank of Secretary to Government of Kerala to be nominated by the Trustee in consultation with Government of Kerala who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee; (b) one member nominated by the trustee; (c) one member nominated by the Government of Kerala; (d) one member nominated by the Ministry of Culture, Government of India; and (e) the Chief Thantri of the temple – Held: The suggestions made by the appellants in their Note with regard to the constitution of the Administrative Committee and the Advisory Committee is accepted subject to the modification with respect to the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee – A minor change in the Administrative Committee is made – Instead of a retired Indian Administrative Service Officer of the rank of Secretary to the Government of Kerala as the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee, in the interest of justice, the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram shall be the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee.

Words and Phrases :‘Shebait’ – meaning of – The expression Shebait is derived from “Sewa” which means service and shebait, in literal sense, means one who renders “sewa” to the idol or a deity.

Disposing of the matters, the Court

HELD: 1. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances on record, the issues concerning the status and entitlement of the appellant No.1 including the relationship vis-a-vis the Temple are concerned, the controversy can be considered under the following five segments:-

A] Situation obtaining before and upto the date when the Covenant was entered into in May 1949.

B] Effect of the Covenant that was entered into in May

C] Effect of the Constitution of India as it stood before the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 and of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (TC Act).

1949.

D] Effect of the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971.

E] Effect of the death of the person who had signed the Covenant as the Ruler of Travancore. [Para 50][1078-C-E]

2. A] Situation obtaining before and upto the date when the Covenant was entered into in May 1949

2.1 Though there may be different accounts and beliefs with regard to the origin and how the Temple was set up, every version accepts that the King of Travancore had a role in the administration of the Temple to begin with, and that he was the one who re-constructed the Temple after a major fire that occurred in the year 1686, and installed a new idol and took full control of the Temple. The King of Travancore was thus responsible for setting up the Temple, in the form that it stands today, and it was the King who installed the new idol, and since then the management of the Temple, till the Covenant was signed, had always been with the Kings of Travancore. [Para 54][1080G-H; 1081-A]

2.2. Tested on any parameter, such as historical accounts, popular and customary beliefs, certain practices connected with the rituals and affairs of the Temple that mandatorily require the presence and participation of the Ruler, deep involvement of the members of ruling family and their connection with the Temple and Sri Padmanabhaswamy at various stages of their lives, “The Thrippati Danam” and its significance, and long recognised and accepted fact that the management of the Temple had always been with the Ruler, leads this Court to conclude that for centuries, the Temple had been under the exclusive management of successive Rulers from the ruling family of Travancore and that the Rulers of Travancore, till the signing of the Covenant, were in the capacity as Managers or Shebaits of the Temple. [Para 60][1085-G-H; 1086-A-B]

2.3 As laid down by this Court in various decisions, when the idol is installed and the temple is constructed or an endowment is founded, the shebaitship is vested in the founder and unless the founder himself has disposed of the shebaitship in a particular manner or there is some usage or custom or circumstances showing a different mode of devolution, the shebaitship like any other species of heritable property follows the line of inheritance from the founder; and it is not open to the Court to lay down a new rule of succession or alter the rule of succession. It has also been laid down that the shebaitship has the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest blended together and they invest the office of the shebait with the character of proprietary right. It has further been laid down that the shebait is the custodian of the idol, its earthly spokesman and the human ministrant; is entitled to deal with the temporal affairs and to manage the property of the idol; and even where no emoluments are attached to the office of the shebait, he has the right or interest in the endowed property which has the characteristics of a proprietary right. [Para 73][1110-G-H; 1111-A-B]

2.4 If the instant case is considered on the touchstone of these settled principles, it is clear that after the major fire that occurred in the year 1686, the Temple was reconstructed and a new idol was installed by the then King of Travancore and since then right upto the day the Covenant was signed, the management of the Temple had always been with the Kings of Travancore. The shebaitship or the managership of the Temple passed on to the succeeding Kings, coming from the royal family of Travancore. This chain was unbroken till the then Ruler of Travancore signed the Covenant in May 1949. [Para 73][1111-C]

2.5 This Court must thus conclude that as on the day when the Covenant was entered into by the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore, apart from other incidents which normally follow the rulership, he was holding the office of Shebait of the Temple and represented a continuous and unbroken line of successive Shebaits traced from the original founder; and being a Shebait of the Temple, he was having all the rights and interest as laid down by decisions of the Courts. [Para 74][1111-F-G]

3. B] Effect of the Covenant that was entered into in May

3.1 Sub-Article ‘b’ of Article VIII used the expression “now vested in trust in the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore” and thus acknowledged the factum that the administration in respect of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and all other properties and funds of the Temple was already vested in the Ruler of Covenanting State of Travancore. Sub-Article ‘b’ further contemplated that with effect from the appointed day, the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and all other properties and funds of the Temple would be subject to the control and supervision of the “Ruler of Travancore”. This SubArticle was the centre of debate and fulcrum of submissions by the counsel appearing for various parties. [Para 77][1114-D-E]

3.2 What then would be the import of the expression “the Ruler of Travancore” in the latter part of Sub-Article ‘b’ of Article VIII is the question that needs to be addressed. The only place in the Covenant where the person who signed as the Ruler of the Covenanting State would continue to enjoy his erstwhile powers as the Head of that Covenanting State, was Article XXI. The references as “the Ruler of the Covenanting State” and as the Ruler of Travancore or as “the Ruler of Cochin” in rest of the Articles, were only by way of reference to the person concerned, and not by way of reference to or because of his official capacity as the Ruler. This gets fortified by proviso to Sub-Article ‘d’ of Article VIII, in terms of which “the Ruler of Cochin” would continue to exercise regulation and control with respect to rituals and ceremonies in certain temples. Upon the Covenant coming into effect, he had lost his capacity as the Head of the erstwhile State of Cochin. Thus, the retention of the powers under said proviso in him was not because he had any official status as Head of the State after the appointed day in terms of the Covenant but only with a view to describe and locate the person concerned. A person answering the description in said proviso would continue to exercise such power. Similar thought can, therefore, be validly entertained that the description in the latter part of Sub-Article ‘b’ of Article VIII was only to refer to or locate the person. Furthermore, the historical background and the association of the royal family with the Temple and the nature of Shebaitship held by a successive line of Rulers from time to time, were such that the Covenant designedly let the management of the affairs of the Temple – with the royal family, and in the hands of the Ruler of Travancore, principally because his official capacity or status as the erstwhile Head of the State apparently had nothing to do with the capacity as Shebait of the Temple. It is also pertinent to note here that other Devaswoms and Endowments in the erstwhile State of Travancore also used to be under the control of the erstwhile Ruler of Travancore. Going by the Travancore Interim Constitution Act, though such control was to be retained by the ruling family, the Covenant expressed clearly to the contrary. Sub-Article ‘c’ of Article VIII acknowledged that administration with respect to said other Devaswoms and Endowments and other properties was earlier under the management of the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore. It, however, stated that with effect from the appointed day in terms of the Covenant, such management would now vest in Travancore Devaswom Board. This part also finds mention in the relevant paragraphs of the White Paper. Thus, wherever the official capacity of the Head of the State was responsible for enabling the Ruler to be in charge of the management or administration, upon ceasing to have such capacity, the erstwhile Ruler would have nothing to do with the management of such other Devaswoms or Endowments. In contrast, the case with respect to the Temple and other properties referred to in Sub-Article ‘b’ stands on a completely different footing. [Para 79][1115-F-H; 1116-A-C; 1119-D-F]

3.3 In the premises, it must be held that the expression “the Ruler of Travancore” used in the latter part of Sub-Article ‘b’ of Article VIII was only by way of reference and the purport of said Sub-Article was not to invest the said authority and power because he was the Ruler or enjoyed and represented any official status. [Para 79][1119-H]

3.4 The Article VIII of the Covenant not only acknowledged and accepted the factum that the administration with respect to the Temple, its properties, as well as with respect to Pandaravaga properties, had already vested in “the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore”, but the said Article expressly continued the same status and stipulated that such administration shall be conducted subject to the supervision and control of “the Ruler of Travancore”. [Para 81][1121-A-B]

4. C] Effect of the Constitution of India as it stood before the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 and of the provisions of TC Act

4.1 Art. 291 of the Constitution of India dealt with Privy Purses payable to the Rulers and stipulated that if under any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State, any sums were guaranteed or assured by the Government of the Dominion of India to be paid as Privy Purse, the sums in that behalf would be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India and that the sums so paid to any Ruler would be exempt from all taxes on income. Article 362 of the Constitution of India stipulated that in the exercise of the power of Parliament, or of the Legislature of a State, to make laws or in the exercise of their respective executive powers, due regard shall be had to the guarantee or the assurance given under any such covenant or agreement, as was referred to in Art. 291 of the Constitution of India, with respect to personal rights, privileges and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State.

Art. 366(22) defined the expression “Ruler” to mean, inter alia, one who had signed the Covenant referred to in Article 291 and who, for the time being, was recognized by the President of India to be the Ruler of that State and would include successor to such Ruler. It may be stated here that there is no dispute that the Ruler of Travancore who signed the Covenant was recognized by the President of India to be the Ruler of Travancore. Article 363, which has remained unamended, speaks of “Bar to interference by Courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties, agreements etc.” [Para 82][1121-D-G; 1122-A]

4.2 Soon thereafter, the TC Act came into force. The relevant provisions of the TC Act have already been extracted earlier. Chapter III of the TC Act specifically dealt with Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and matters pertaining to the administration of the Temple. Said Chapter III of the TC Act is consistent with the latter part of Sub-Article ‘b’ of Article VIII of the Covenant and stipulates inter alia that the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and all other properties and funds of the Temple “vested in trust in the Ruler of Travancore” and the sum of Rs.6 lakhs contributed in terms of Sub-Section 1 of Section 18 of the TC Act shall be conducted, “subject to the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore” by an Executive Officer appointed by him. Said Chapter III did not confer any right or benefit for the first time, where none existed earlier but gave statutory recognition to what was acknowledged and accepted in the latter part of Sub-Article ‘b’ of Article VIII of the Covenant to be the continuing status. Section 20 of the TC Act then deals with the constitution of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Committee, which is also in tune with said Article VIII of the Covenant. [Para 83][1122-B-D]

4.3 Insofar as the present segment is concerned, it must, therefore, be concluded that the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India as well as that of the TC Act did not, in any way, upset or abridge the status enjoyed by the Ruler of Travancore as Shebait of the Temple and also did not, in any manner, adversely impact the right of administration vested in the Ruler of Travancore. As a matter of fact, the relevant provisions of the TC Act afforded statutory flavour to the status contemplated by Article VIII of the Covenant. [Para 86][1130-FG]

5. D] Effect of the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971

5.1 The assurances and guarantees given in the covenants or agreements entered into with various Rulers normally had four elements; i) that certain sums shall be payable to the Rulers by way of Privy Purses; ii) that certain properties mentioned as private properties of the Ruler would vest in the Ruler in his personal capacity; iii) that succession to the Gaddi would go strictly by the prevalent law and custom; and iv) that personal rights, privileges and dignities enjoyed by the Rulers and in some cases by the members of the family of the Ruler, would continue to be available. [Para 91][1137-B-C]

5.2 Out of the aforesaid four elements, the elements (i) and (iv) were covered by Articles 291 and 362 as they stood before being deleted. The effect of such deletion has been discussed and dealt with. The elements (ii) and (iii) are normal incidents which were not within the scope of said Articles 291 and 362. Despite the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, the private properties of the Ruler would continue to be available for normal succession and devolution in accordance with the law and custom. Though concepts such as Ruler or Rulership have ceased to operate, succession to the Gaddi as an incident may still operate. For instance, there could be a sword or any other ceremonial weapon, or a sarpech, or heirloom jewellery, which must go by rule of primogeniture, as against the normal way of succession with regard to other personal properties. All such incidents have not been terminated. [Para 92][1137-D-F]

5.3 These four elements were covered by Articles XIV, XV, XVII and XVI respectively in the Covenant in the present case. However, apart from the said four assurances, the Covenant also dealt with an additional and important aspect in Article VIII(b). It accepted and acknowledged that the administration with respect to the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties, and the property of the Temple which was also vested in the Ruler of the Covenanting State would continue to be conducted in the manner stipulated therein, subject to the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore. The effect of such Article and the fact that such vesting was not in the capacity as Ruler has already been dealt with. It has also been concluded that the expression “The Ruler of Travancore” was only to locate and describe the person who would be in control and supervision of the administration. [Para 93][1137-H; 1138-A-C]

5.4 In the premises, this Court must conclude that the Constitution (Twenty -Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 did not in any way impact or affect the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and the properties of the Temple, which continued to be under the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore. [Para 94][1138-C-D]

6. E] Effect of the death of the person who had signed the Covenant as the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore

6.1 In the instant case, since the Shebaitship had vested in the Ruler of Travancore, not in his official capacity, the normal incident of heritability must get attached to the office of such Shebaitship in accordance with governing principles of succession and custom. Therefore, when it comes to the matter concerning the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandavaraga properties and the properties of the Temple, the expression “the Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of TC Act must mean the successor in accordance with the prevalent law and custom. In the process one need not go to the definition of Ruler either under Art. 366(22) or under Art. 363 of the Constitution of India. Consistent with the principles that have been culled in the various established judgments of the Courts after the death of the person who was in control and supervision of the administration, the heritable interest must devolve in accordance with the customary rights. [Para 105][1142-G; 1143-A-B]

6.2 In the circumstances, this Court holds that the death of the last ruler who had signed the Covenant, would not in any way affect the Shebaitship of the Temple held by the royal family of Travancore; that after such death, the Shebaitship must devolve in accordance with the applicable law and custom upon his successor; that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act must include his natural successors according to law and custom; and that the Shebaitship did not lapse in favour of the State by principle of escheat. [Para 107][1147-C-D]

7. The provisions of the TC Act with respect to the administration of the Temple are clear:-

A. Under Section 18(2), the administration shall be conducted. “Subject to the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore, by an Executive Officer appointed by him.” B. “Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Committee”

composed of three members nominated by the Ruler of Travancore in terms of Section 20 is to advise the Ruler of Travancore in the discharge of his functions. The Statute has thus vested the power of appointing the Executive Officer and of forming the Advisory Committee, in the Ruler of Travancore.

In the Note, the appellants have stated:(i) “The Trustee shall delegate his powers of administration under Section 18(2)” to the Administrative Committee which “shall administer the Temple through an Executive Officer to be appointed by the Committee”.

(ii) On all policy matters, the Trustee shall be guided by the advice of the Advisory Committee. [Para 113][1156-C-F]

8. Having given anxious consideration to the rival suggestions, the composition of the Committees as suggested by the appellants (Note adverted in detail in paragraph 47 of the judgment) deserves acceptance, especially in light of the conclusions arrived by this Court that the Managership or the Shebaitship of the Temple continues with the Family. As against the administration contemplated by Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act in the hands of the Ruler of Travancore in absolute terms, the course now suggested by the appellants is quite balanced. The Composition of the Administrative Committee as suggested is broad based and would not be loaded in favour or against the Trustee. However, considering the fact that the present interim Administrative Committee headed by the District Judge is in seisin for the last more than five years, and various District Judges as Chairpersons of the Committee conducted themselves quite well, in view of this Court, a minor change in the Administrative Committee suggested by the appellants in their Note is called for. Instead of a retired Indian Administrative Service Officer of the rank of Secretary to the Government of Kerala as the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee, in the interest of justice, the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram shall be the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee. Needless to say that the present Chairperson of the Interim Administrative Committee shall continue to be the Chairperson so long as he holds the post of the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The composition of the Advisory Committee will ensure that the administration of the Temple is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. [Para 114][1156-F-H; 1157-A-C]

Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. His Highness Shri Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma (since deceased) and Others (1993) 1 Suppl. SCC 233 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 30; The Commissioner, Hindu Religious

Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [1954] SCR 1005;

M. Siddiq (dead) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) (2020) 1 SCC 1; Maharaja Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo Kakatiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1961] 2 SCR 501; Rani Ratna Prova Devi v. State of Orissa and Another [1964] 6 SCR 301– followed.

Mahant Sital Das v. Sant Ram and Others AIR 1954 SC 606; His Holiness Digya Darshan Rajendra Ram Doss v. Devendra Doss (1973) 1 SCC 14 : [1973] 2 SCR 911; Profulla Chorone Requitte v. Satya Chorone Requitte (1979) 3 SCC 409 : [1979] 3 SCR 431; Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick [1951] SCR 1125; Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar (2017) 16 SCC

418 : [2017] 9 SCR 766 – relied on.

Deep Chand and Others v. State of U.P. and Others [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 8; Sawai Tej Singhji of Alwar v. Union of India (1979) 1 SCC 512 : [1979] 2 SCR 62 – held inapplicable.

Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 85 : [1971] 3 SCR 9; Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India (1994) 1 Suppl. SCC 191: [1993] 1 SCR 480; Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company and Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 679: [1985] 1 SCR 432; Bala Shankar Mahashankar

Bhattjee and Others v. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State (1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 485 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 687; Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. The State of Rajasthan and Others [1964] 1 SCR 561; National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater, Bombay (1969) 1 SCC 541 : [1969] 3 SCR 565; Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. and Others v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (1979) 4 SCC 565 : [1979] 3 SCR 373 – referred to.

Gossamee Sree Greedharreejee v. Rumanlolljee

Gossamee 16 M.I.A.137 : (1889) L.R. 16 I.A. 137; Ganesh v. Lal Behary (1935-36) 63 I.A. 448; Bhaba Tarini Debi v. Asha Lata Debi AIR 1943 PC 89 : (1943) ILR 2 P.C. 137; Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal v. Balusami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 PC 123 –

referred to.

Manohar Mukherjee v. Bhupendra Nath Mukherjee and Ors. I.L.R (1993) 60 Cal. 452 – referred to. “Sree Padamanabhaswamy Temple” authored by

Princess Aswathi Thirunal Gouri Lakshmi Bayi – referred to.

“History of Sri Padamanabhasvami Temple till 1758” by Dr. A.G. Menon – referred to.

“The Hindu Law of Religious Endowments and

Charitable Trusts” Edited by Hon. P.B.

Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India – referred to.

White Paper on the Indian States prepared in July 1948 and updated in March 1950 by the Government of India, Ministry of States – referred to.