| Headnote |
Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 –Chapter III of Part-I, Sections 18 to 23 – Constitution of India –Arts. 363 and 366 (22) – Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple –Shebaitship or the managership of the temple – There are manyversions as regard to the origin and how the temple was set up,however, every version accepts that the King of Travancore had arole in the administration of the temple – After a major fire incidentoccurred in the year 1686, it was the king who re-constructed thetemple and installed a new idol and took full control of the temple –Since then the management of the temple was with the king ofTravancore – Thereafter, a Covenant was entered into by the rulersof Travancore and Cochin with the Government of India on27.05.1949 and 29.05.1949 respectively – Art. VIII(b) of theCovenant preserved the administrative right of the ruler ofTravancore in respect of the Sree Padmanabhswamy temple – TheConstitution of India made certain provisions with regard to privypurse payable to the rulers in terms of any Covenant entered intoby the ruler of the State – Soon after the coming into force of theConstitution, the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious InstitutionsAct, 1950 was enacted and Chapter III of Part-I of the samecomprising of Sections 18 to 23 deals specifically with SriPadmnabhaswamy temple – Then came the Constitution (Twenty SixthAmendment) Act, 1971 which deleted Arts. 291 and 362 and insertedArt. 363A which now expressly stipulates, inter-alia, that any personwho was recognised as ruler or successor, and all rights, liabilitiesand obligation in respect of Privy purses stand extinguished – On19.07.1991, the ruler who had executed the Covenant passed away– Since then, the appellant no. 1, younger brother of the deceasedruler had been exercising all the functions as ‘Ruler of Travancore’with respect to the affairs of the temple – A writ petition was filed bya advocate before the High Court to issue a writ of quo warrantodirecting appellant no. 2, the Executing Officer (appointed by theruler of Travancore as per covenant) to show the authority underwhich he was holding the post of Executing Officer of the temple –Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by the appellants referringto the relevant Articles of the Covenant – Also, there were civil suitspending, which challenged the authority of the appellants hereinwith the affairs of the temple – Whether the appellant no.1-youngerbrother of the last ruler of Travancore could after the death of thelast ruler on 19.07.1991 claim to be the ‘ruler of Travancore’ withinthe meaning of the term contained in s.18(2) of the 1950 Act toclaim ownership, control and management of the SreePadmanabhaswamy Temple – The High Court held that neitherappellant no. 1 nor any of the successors of his family can claimcontrol or management of the temple u/s. 18(2) of the 1950 Act andthe State Government was directed to constitute a body corporateor trust or other legal authority to take control of the temple –Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the Supreme Court –Held: The Supreme Court has laid down that when the idol isinstalled and the temple is constructed or an endowment is founded,the shebaitship is vested in the founder and unless the founder himselfhas disposed of the shebaitship in a particular manner or there issome usage or custom or circumstances showing a different modeof devolution, the shebaitship like any other species of heritableproperty follows the line of inheritance from the founder, and it isnot open to the Court to lay down a new rule of succession or alterthe rule of succession – In the instant case, the shebaitship or themanagership of the temple passed on to the succeeding kings, comingfrom the royal family of Travancore and represented a continuousand unbroken line of successive shebaits from the original founder– The Art. VIII of the Covenant acknowledged and accepted in thelatter part of Sub-Article (b) of Art. VIII of the covenant that theadministration in respect of the temple was already vested in theruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore – Therefore, when theCovenant was entered into by the Ruler of the Covenanting State ofTravancore, apart from other incidents which normally follow therulership, he was holding the office of Shebait of the Temple andrepresented a continuous and unbroken line of successive Shebaitstraced from the original founder – Insofar as the Constitution(Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 is concerned, despite thisamendment, the private properties of the ruler would continue to beavailable for normal succession and devolution in accordance withthe law and custom – Though the concepts such as Ruler or Rulershiphave ceased to operate, succession to the Gaddi as an incident maystill operate – So, the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act,1971 did not affect the administration of the temple – Therefore,the death of the last ruler who signed the Covenant would not inany way affect the Shebaitship of the Temple held by the royal familyof Travancore, that after such death, the shebaitship must devolvein accordance with the applicable law and custom appearing inChapter III Part-I of the 1950 Act must include his natural successorsaccording to law and customs.Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 –Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple – Constitution of AdministrativeCommittee and Advisory Committee – A Note was given by theappellants about the composition an Administrative Committee andan Advisory Committee to take care of the affairs of the Temple – Itwas suggested, inter-alia, that the Administrative Committee shallconsist of five members: a) a retired Indian Administrative ServiceOfficer of the rank of Secretary to Government of Kerala to benominated by the Trustee in consultation with Government of Keralawho shall be the Chairperson of the Committee; (b) one membernominated by the trustee; (c) one member nominated by theGovernment of Kerala; (d) one member nominated by the Ministryof Culture, Government of India; and (e) the Chief Thantri of thetemple – Held: The suggestions made by the appellants in their Notewith regard to the constitution of the Administrative Committee andthe Advisory Committee is accepted subject to the modification withrespect to the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee – A minorchange in the Administrative Committee is made – Instead of a retiredIndian Administrative Service Officer of the rank of Secretary tothe Government of Kerala as the Chairperson of the AdministrativeCommittee, in the interest of justice, the District Judge,Thiruvananthapuram shall be the Chairperson of the AdministrativeCommittee.Words and Phrases :‘Shebait’ – meaning of – The expressionShebait is derived from “Sewa” which means service and shebait,in literal sense, means one who renders “sewa” to the idol or adeity. |
