Case Title: SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. & ANR. V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
The Supreme Court ordered that the powers of "the Ruler of Travancore" under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act (TC Act) with regard to temple administration be delegated to the Administrative Committee created by the court while upholding the rights of the former Royal Family of Travancore as the shebait of Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Notably, the family itself made the ideas for the Administrative Committee and the transfer of authority to it. The legal heirs of Marthanda Varma, who were the appellants before the Supreme Court, provided a memorandum on November 6, 2014, outlining the formation of an "Administrative Committee" and an "Advisory Committee."
The "Ruler of Travancore" was instructed to "transfer his administrative responsibilities under Section 18(2) of the TC Act to an Administrative Committee, which shall govern the Temple through an Executive Officer to be chosen by the Committee."
The following lineup for the administrative committee was recommended by the family:
a retired Indian Administrative Service Officer with the rank of Secretary to the Kerala State Government (hence, "the State Government"), to be chosen by the Trustee after consultation with the Kerala State Government, who would serve as the Committee's Chairperson;
one trustee-nominated representative (the Travancore family);
one representative to be chosen by the Keralan government;
one representative to be chosen by India's Ministry of Culture; and
the temple's Chief Thantri.
A proposed Advisory Committee included the following members:
A former High Court judge who would be chosen as the Committee's Chairperson by the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court.
One distinguished individual to be proposed by the Trustee;
A reputable chartered accountant will be proposed by the chairperson after discussing the matter with the trustee.
The proposals made by the former Royal Family about the formation of the Administrative Committee and the Advisory Committee to oversee and govern the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple were adopted by the SC bench made up of Justices U.U Lalit and Indu Malhotra.
When compared to the plan of administration envisioned under the TC Act, the Court described the Family's proposal as "very balanced and wide based" and "not be weighted in favour or against the Trustee."
"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 bench observed.
According to Section 18(1) of the TC Act, the "Ruler of Travancore" is entrusted with the management of the temple, its assets, and its money. According to Section 18(2), "Subject to the authority and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore, by an Executive Officer designated by him," the administration should be carried out. Additionally, the Ruler of Travancore is advised in the performance of his duties by the "Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Committee," which is formed of three individuals appointed by the Ruler of Travancore in accordance with Section 20.
The District Judge of Thiruvananthapuram should serve as the Committee's Chairperson, the Court said, in place of the IAS officer holding the rank of Government Secretary who was to be chosen by the family. The Administrative Committee shall continue to have the authority granted to it by Section 18(2), the Court further ordered.
Consequently, relying on Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji of Alwar vs. Union of India and anr. and Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court gave the following directive that the Administrative Committee will have the following members:-
Judge, District of Thiruvananthapuram
One member chosen by the trustee
One chosen by the Keralan government
One chosen by the Indian Ministry of Culture
One chosen by the chief thantri of the temple.
The Court further stated that all members, including the chairs of the administrative and advisory committees, must identify as Hindus and adhere to the conditions set out in Section 2(aa) of the TC Act. The temple was treated as a "public temple" by the court as it conducted its proceedings.
The appellant had been ordered by the court to submit an affidavit of undertaking on the transfer of authority to the Administrative Committee and acceptance of the change in the membership of the committee. The Court emphasised that the affidavit of the undertaking will be binding on the appellants' heirs.