Introduction

The case of Sunil Kumar C. And Others v. Travancore Devaswom Board, Represented By Its Secretary And Others adjudicated by the Kerala High Court on May 25, 2022, addresses the contentious issue of the constitution and term limits of Temple Advisory Committees (TAC) under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The petitioners, devotees of the Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple in Haripad, sought judicial intervention to ensure the proper formation of a TAC and to prevent the unauthorized renovation of the temple's historical monument, the 'Koothambalam'.

Central to the grievance was the alleged arbitrary constitution of an Ad-hoc Committee by the Travancore Devaswom Board for the renovation work, bypassing the established procedures and term limits prescribed by the extant rules and statutory provisions. The plea invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce compliance with the legal framework governing the management and administration of temple affairs.

Summary of the Judgment

The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Anil K. Narendran, examined the constitution of an Ad-hoc Committee in lieu of the statutory Temple Advisory Committee, alleging violations of the Extent.P1 Rules set forth by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The court found that the extensions granted to the TAC were unwarranted and exceeded the permissible limits. Consequently, the formation of the Ad-hoc Committee, which included members exceeding the prescribed term limits, was deemed arbitrary and illegal. The court directed the respondents to reconstitute a compliant Temple Advisory Committee adhering strictly to the statutory provisions and procedural norms.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

A significant precedent cited in this judgment was the case of Santharam Roy T.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022 (2) KHC 595 (DB)], where the Kerala High Court elucidated the composition and election procedures of the Temple Advisory Committees under the Ext.P1 Rules. Another pivotal reference was Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2021 (3) KHC 379], wherein the court emphasized the statutory nature of TACs and the non-negotiable term limits to ensure timely elections and prevent administrative stagnation.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on the strict interpretation of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and the accompanying Ext.P1 Rules. Central to the judgment was the provision under Clause (11) of the Ext.P1 Rules, which delineates the term of office for TACs as two years from approval, with possible extensions of one year each under specific circumstances such as ongoing development works. However, these extensions are not to exceed a total of four years.

The Court scrutinized the sequence of term extensions granted to the TAC of the Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, noting that the extensions were granted without substantive justification or commencement of development activities within the original term. The inclusion of respondents 6 to 10 in the Ad-hoc Committee was particularly problematic, as they had already served the maximum term of four years, thereby violating Clause (18) of the Ext.P1 Rules, which prohibits members from serving beyond two consecutive terms.

Further, the Court examined the appropriateness of forming an Ad-hoc Committee under Clause (21) of the Ext.P1 Rules, which permits the establishment of alternative committees only in cases of "practical difficulties" in forming a TAC. The substitution of the statutory TAC with an Ad-hoc Committee did not meet this stringent criterion, rendering the action unlawful.

Impact

This landmark judgment reinforces the imperative adherence to statutory mandates governing the administration of temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board. By affirming the sanctity of term limits and procedural adherence, the Court ensures that temple governance remains transparent, accountable, and democratic. Future cases involving the management of temple affairs will likely reference this judgment to uphold the prescribed legal framework, thereby preventing arbitrary administrative actions and safeguarding the interests of devotees and stakeholders.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Temple Advisory Committee (TAC)

A Temple Advisory Committee is a statutory body constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. Its primary role is to involve devotees in the management and developmental activities of the temple, ensuring participatory governance. TACs are elected from the 'registered mandalam'—a group of devotees meeting specific criteria such as residency within 5 kilometers of the temple, regular worship, and significant contributions to temple affairs.

2. Ad-hoc Committee

An Ad-hoc Committee is a temporary committee formed for a specific purpose and is not governed by the regular statutory provisions that apply to TACs. Under Clause (21) of the Ext.P1 Rules, an Ad-hoc Committee may be formed only in exceptional circumstances where constituting a TAC is practically unfeasible.

3. Ext.P1 Rules

These are the extended rules framed by the Travancore Devaswom Board to regulate the formation, functioning, and management of Temple Advisory Committees. They outline various provisions, including objectives, membership criteria, term limits, and protocols for handling exceptions.

4. 'Anunja' Ceremony

'Anunja' is a ceremonial blessing sought from the deity before undertaking any major renovations or developmental works in the temple premises. It signifies divine approval and is a prerequisite for commencing significant construction or repair activities in accordance with religious protocols.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court's judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar C. And Others v. Travancore Devaswom Board serves as a crucial precedent in the realm of temple administration. By meticulously enforcing the statutory provisions and extending no leniency towards arbitrary administrative extensions or substitutions, the Court has underscored the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks. This ensures that temple governance remains democratic, transparent, and aligned with the interests of the devotees and the preservation of religious heritage. The decision reinforces the rule of law within religious institutions, setting a clear benchmark for future disputes and administrative conduct under the Travancore Devaswom Board.