PADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE ISSUE: LEGAL ANGLE

INTRODUCTION

The historical Padmanabha Swamy temple, built with granite, was built in 18th century by the
ruler of Travancore, Maharaja Balarama Verma. The main deity of this temple is lord Vishnu
found in the reclined posture. It is known to be one of the 108 holy temples associated with
Vaishnavism in India.

After the integration of princely states of Travancore and Cochin and Union of India in 1947,
all the temples were in control of Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. Due to the
instrument of accession signed by the ruler and government in 1949 and by virtue of 18(2) of
TC act, the powers of management of temple was vested in trust in the ruler.

In the effect of the 26th constitutional amendment act,1971; the concept of the ruler was
removed from the constitution and the privy purses and the benefits and privileges of all the
rulers prior to the amendment was stripped away. Later, in 1991, due to the demise of the
ruler, his brother Marthanda Verma took over the administration of the temple.

FACTS OF THE ISSUE.

 2007: Civil suits were filed by the devotees for injunction and declaration after the
claim made by Marthanda Verma regarding the treasure of the
Padmanabhaswamy temple belonging to their family.

 5 Feb,2010: Marthanda Varma approached the Kerala HC.

 31st Jan 2011: HC vested the rights on the government for the administration of
temple instead of the family.

 29th April 2011: Marthanda Varma approached the SC against the HC order.

 2nd May 2011: SC directed to record the valuables and strengthened the security of
 temples.

 8th July 2011: Directed to not unlock the vault ‘B’ of the temple.

 21st July 2011: Directed to constitute an expert committee for advice on the articles
and other valuables.

 23rd August 2012: Appointed Adv Gopal Subramaniam as amicus curiae.

 16th December,2013 : Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma passed away.

 In the year 2014 and 2017, SC also appointed advocates and committees for the
management and renovation of the temple and for checking the expenses and audit
records of the temple.

 10th April 2019: The hearing of the case concluded and the judgement reserved.

 13th July 2020: SC delivered the verdict and delegated the powers of “Ruler of
Travancore” To Administrative Committee as Suggested by Ex-
Royal Family.

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED:

 Section 18(2) of Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1950

 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971:
 Incorporated Article 366(22): Removed the concept of ‘ruler’; and deleted Article 291
and 362 od Indian Constitution.
 Section 20 of Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1950: Advisory
Committee formed.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The case, Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Through Legal Representatives (LR) v. State of Kerala

and others, was one of the most controversial case over the question of administration of the

historic temple, Padmanabha Swamy temple. This article intends to analyse the

effectiveness and scope of the recent SC judgement delivered.

A Trap of The Government?

The verdict of Supreme Court, which apparently sustains the rights of the Travancore royal

family on the administration of the temple, indirectly inherits powers and control in the

hands of the government through its terms and conditions. The formation of the

administrative and advisory committee by SC majorly constitutes of nominees or

representatives of government and judges of court. The Sc has also directed that the

security establishments made by the government like installation of CCTV cameras and the

daily security expenses would not be funded by the government and have to be beard by

the temple itself and has also ordered the conduct of the audit of temple of last 25years

which has never happened even on scam companies. This results in dependency on the

government for the daily expenses and for any operations of the temple as it is inevitable

with the meagre income of the temple that also includes the remuneration to its employees

or pujaris.

Prevailing Customary Law

The judgement of the Supreme Court is celebrated by the royal family of Travancore as it

restores the interests of the family of the “ruler of Travancore” and recognizes the rights

shebaitship of the family and provides them the managerial rights over the temple. In effect

to the death of the Maharaja Balarama and incorporation of 366(22) of 26th constitutional
amendment act, which removes the concept of ruler and takes away the privy purses and all

the privileges and benefits of the ruler, the High Court in 2011 had snatched away all the

rights of the royal family and entrusted them with the government. But the Supreme Court

reversed the HC judgement as it gave preference and more importance to the customs as the

royal family were the Shebait of the temple and by virtue of 18(2) of TC act and the

instrument of accession signed, the royal family practiced the control over the temple since

time immemorial.

Violates the Spirit of Secularism

The judgement of the SC of formation of administrative and advisory committees which

mandatorily constitutes Hindus and the High Court judgement in 2011 where all the rights

of the temple were vested with the government including the possession of its articles and

its treasure raises serious questions on the violation of secularism in the country. Lakhs of

temples in the country are governed by statutory laws and their financial affairs are

controlled by the government. It is specifically the Hindu community that is been

discriminated under different acts like Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowment Act,1951

(HRCE) whereas no other religious institution like mosques, gurudwara or church has any

control of government. Secularism requires the state to be neutral of all the religions and

treat and respect all the religion equally. Singling out one religion leads to infringement of

basic human rights and infringement of Article 25 and 26 of Indian Constitution and

participation of state and central government nominee in administering the affairs of the

temple violates secularism in the country.

CONCLUSION
Through this article, the author intends to concluded that this case is one of the very

important and landmark case. Though the Supreme Court provides the rights to the royal

family for the management of the temple, the real powers to look into the financial affairs

and the control of the temples still lie with the advisory and the auditing committee. It

displays the intervention of the judiciary and the government in the religious institution

which violates the secularism in the country.

ISHITA AGARWAL