Administration of Temples in Kerala Under the Constitution of India (Part-2 of the Lord Padmanabhaswamy Temple)

 

ADMINISTRATION OF TEMPLES IN KERALA UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (PART-2 OF THE LORD PADMANABHSWAMY TEMPLE)

1) The Coming Into Force of the Constitution of India

a) The Government of India Act, 1919 and 1935, were not applicable to the State of Travancore.  At the time of Independence, the then king (acting on the advice of a hugely unpopular Diwan) contemplated an independent kingdom. However, such plans were abandoned in view of the prevailing nationalistic public sentiments. The king acceded to the Union of India on the condition that he will remain the custodian of Shree Padmanabhaswamy Temple. The Travancore Devaswom Board Act, passed by the Legislature of Kerala, had distinct provisions to govern the temples which were under the administration of the King of Travancore. The provisions relating to the Padmanabha Swamy Temple were not amended at any time in the past, even though there were substantial changes to other provisions. Today, Kerala is a highly tolerant liberal society where the believers (UDF) and the non-believers (LDF) exercise political power, alternatively. Kerala is surprisingly devoid of the Brahmin hatred that is undoubtedly present in the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu. Kerala is so unique that more people of Keralite origin live outside Kerala than in Kerala itself.

b) The Constitution of India, as it was originally enacted, did not contain the word “secular” in the Preamble to the Constitution of India. In my opinion, Mrs. Gandhi’s 42nd Constitutional Amendment on this point is superfluous. But, the Supreme Court, even after striking down the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, allowed this term to remain in the Preamble to the Constitution of India. Several states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala have established their own Hindu Religious Endowments Board. So, the Government plays a role in the management of the temples, more particularly, the administration of temple properties. Some sections of the society nurture a grouse that while the other minorities have full rights to manage their religious institutions, Hindus alone are deprived of this right. For example, in Tamil Nadu, except the Chidambaram and Srirangam Temples, all the temples that have a Hundi, come under the administration of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. This is a Government department under political leadership. In Kerala, this situation took an interesting turn when some of the Marxist Party members, whose ideology forbids the worship of God and encourages them to question the existence of God, sought to become members of the Temple Governing Bodies. Regularly (at least in Tamil Nadu) we hear stories of the antique temple idols and jewellery being stolen and imitation idols/jewellery installed in their place. In states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the institution of hereditary trusteeship has been officially done away with. Yet, informally, the hereditary trustees, manage to have some role in the administration by coming under the selection process meant for trustees. In states like Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, though there is a Government department to oversee the administration of Hindu temples, there are mutts that control the administration of their own temples and their properties with relatively little governmental intervention.

2) The Devaswom Boards in Kerala

a) It is of interest to note that the moderately sized state of Kerala has five Devaswom Boards. In terms of revenue, the Guruvayur Devaswom Board, which has just 12 temples under its administration, earns annual revenue of Rs. 400 crores and its total assets are valued at Rs. 2,500 crores. The Travancore Devaswom Board that has 1,240 temples under its administration, earns annual revenue of Rs. 390 crores. Of this, the Sabarimala Temple generates Rs. 200 crores in revenue and 3 other temples in Mavelikkara (Rs. 100 crores), Ettumanoor Temple (Rs. 60 crores), and the Malayalapuzha Temple (Rs. 5.7 crores). Not surprisingly, the asset details of this Travancore Devaswom Board are not available. Of the other 2 Devaswom Boards, the Malabar Devaswom Board has an annual revenue of Rs. 80 crores, 1,337 temples under its administration, and the total assets are obscure. The Cochin Devaswom Board has an annual revenue of Rs. 50 crores, 403 temples under its purview, and its asset details are not known. Until the Trivandrum Temple treasure was unearthed, the Guruvayur Temple and the Sabarimala Temple were the richest temples in Kerala.

3) A Note on the Present Litigation

a) It should be said to the credit of the Kerala populace that neither the State of Kerala nor the non-believing general public initiated this litigation that resulted in the order demanding the inventorisation of the temple treasure. It was an ideological and spiritual battle between two believers. The litigation was initiated by Mr. Sundararajan, a Vaishnavite Brahmin, who was born in the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu. His father migrated to Thiruvananthapuram and apparently, had worked under the King to assist him in the administration of the temple properties. Mr. Sundararajan is, indeed, an interesting personality. He became an IPS Officer and served for about 7 years. He resigned ostensibly to take care of his ailing father and to be near Lord Padmanabha’s abode. He nurtured a suspicion that there were unrecorded entries into the temple treasure vaults. Therefore, he filed litigation seeking an inventorisation of the articles stored in the vaults.

b) The original king who deposited the Instrument of Accession died and the question arose as to whether the next eligible Royal Family member could take the place of the erstwhile Ruler insofar as it relates to the role of the exclusive right to manage the temple affairs devoid of any governmental interference.

c) The Government of Kerala thought that it would be in order for a secular government ruled by Marxists to take care of the temporal affairs of the temple. So, they took the view that the present Shebait cannot be equated to the original ruler who deposited the Instrument of Accession with the Union of India. Strictly speaking, under law, an Instrument of Accession is a Treaty. The successor state cannot violate the obligations which it has undertaken as per the Instrument of Accession. The descendants of the erstwhile Royal Family felt that notwithstanding the death of the former ruler, the next eligible male member of the family will step into the shoes of the Shebait and continue to manage the temple as Padmanabhadasa. The Kerala High Court held that the present nominee of the descendants has no such rights and the state of Kerala will have unfettered legislative powers to enact a mechanism to manage the temporal and economic affairs of the temple. More importantly, it ordered the inventorisation of articles found in the vaults. At this point in time, while everybody knew that the temple had its treasures, no one had any idea of the quantum of wealth except possibly, the members of the Royal Family. It must be said to the credit of the erstwhile Royal Family that they did not claim ownership to the treasure, yet they claimed that it belonged to Lord Padmanabhaswamy and opposed the opening of Vault B, even for the purpose of inventorisation. In their opinion, it is against the Aagamashastras and they believe that opening this vault will bring sufferings to the inhabitants of Padmanabha’s Kingdom. Notwithstanding their objections, one of the vaults was opened. The provisional inventorisation and valuation indicated that the increase is worth making the temple one of the richest in the world. The Supreme Court has recently decided the appeal arising from this matter. The important features of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India are summarised as under:

i) Even after the death of the erstwhile ruler of Travancore, the most eligible member of the Royal Family has the right to continue as the chief custodian of the properties of the temple, including the treasure.

ii) There must be a Special Committee constituted to oversee the management of the temple properties including its treasure. The Committee shall comprise of the Shebait, a representative of the Government of Kerala, a representative of the Union of India and the Principal District Judge of Thiruvananthapuram. All the members must be Hindus.

iii) Insofar as the spiritual or religious ceremonies are concerned, the Chief Tantri will continue to exercise full authority, in consultation with the Shebait.

iv) The Supreme Court of India further declared that the decision on whether the other vaults must be opened (the management of wealth present in the vaults) must be decided by the Committee that would be constituted. The management of the vaults was also left to the Committee.

4) Sociological Analysis of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India 

a) It is said that good judgment is one that leaves all the parties equally dissatisfied. The judgment becomes better if it provides each of the parties something to cheer about. Both the legal heirs of the former ruler and the state of Kerala, the two contesting parties can claim reasonable victories. By this yardstick, it is indeed good, and in fact, a better judgment. But, unfortunately, the Court has not adjudicated the real issue, which in my opinion is very urgent, namely, whether the forbidden kallara must be opened, if only for the purpose of proper inventorisation and documentation. Late Mr. Sundararajan’s demand was that it is necessary for two reasons: one, preventing possible pilferage, and two, to ensure that there is no damage because of the long duration of storage (dating back to least a couple of centuries without exposure to light, high levels of humidity) by other living organisms, such as reptiles, rodent- mammals et al. It is known that silver articles are susceptible to damage due to oxidisation. In my opinion, the Supreme Court of India ought to have decided this issue, instead of referring the matter to a future Committee.

b) The Government of Kerala can claim that it is a victory of sorts. Indirectly, the Union of India has received an unexpected benefit. A matter which was purely a State subject under the Constitution of India suddenly gets partly enlarged into a Union subject with the presence of the Secretary, Department of Art and Culture, to be a member of the Committee, that is meant to oversee the temporal administration. The descendants of the Royal Family also welcome the judgment as the judgment puts them in a much better situation. But, the main prayer of Late Mr. Sundararajan, namely, the inventorisation of the valuable articles has been postponed for an indefinite period. This is indeed disappointing. A litigant goes to Court, succeeds in the litigation. When the matter is on appeal, he dies and upon his death, the matter is remanded without a “yes” or a “no” to the remedy sought by him. So, from the point of view of the litigant, the Supreme Court of India has disappointed him. The legal and constitutional implications of this judgment will have to be analysed in light of the above factors. This will make Part-3 of my blog on the same topic.