Supreme Court Appoints Administrator for Oachira Temple: Oachira Parabrahma Temple vs. G. Vijayanathakurupu (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 922

Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, Sanjay Kumar J., R. Mahadevan J.

Can a High Court remove an elected temple committee and appoint its own members? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Oachira Parabrahma Temple in Kerala, a unique temple with no idol or sanctum sanctorum. The court considered the validity of the High Court’s actions in appointing an administrator and a new committee, ultimately modifying the High Court’s orders to ensure fair elections and proper administration of the temple and its associated institutions.

Case Background

The Oachira Parabrahma Temple is a unique, ancient temple in Kerala with no consecrated idol. Its management is governed by bye-laws, with a three-tier elected committee system. In May 2017, the appellants were elected as Secretary and President of the Executive Committee. However, on 07 April 2022, a no-confidence motion ousted the existing committee, and a new committee including the appellants took office.

In 2006, a suit was filed seeking a scheme for the temple’s administration. On 09 April 2010, the trial court ordered a preliminary decree to frame a scheme, allowing the existing bye-laws to govern until the scheme was finalized. Defendant Nos. 12 and 13, hereditary trustees, appealed this decree, seeking safeguards for their roles. During the appeal, the High Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner on 05 October 2010 to count offerings, but this role did not extend to administration.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court disposed of the Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 562/2010) on 02 March 2020, directing the trial court to frame a scheme within one year. The High Court also appointed a retired judge, Justice A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, as the Administrative Head of the temple and its managing committee. The elected committees were placed under his supervision, and their decisions required his ratification. The High Court allowed parties to submit suggestions for the draft scheme within one month.

Subsequently, an Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.5 of 2022) was filed, seeking directions for the administrator to conduct elections. On 07 February 2023, the High Court removed the elected Executive Committee and appointed a new, unelected committee of five members, under the supervision of the Administrative Head and an Advocate Commissioner. This order led to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The administration of the Oachira Parabrahma Temple is governed by its bye-laws. Clause 9 of the bye-laws specifies that the term of the elected General Body is five years from the date of election. Clause 11 states that the term of other elected bodies is co-terminus with the General Body. The court noted that no elections had been conducted since May 2017.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the High Court was wrong to entertain the interlocutory application and pass the second impugned order after the disposal of the RFA, as the High Court had become functus officio (having fulfilled its function).
• They contended that the High Court was not justified in removing the elected Executive Committee and appointing an unelected committee, contrary to the temple’s established practices and bye-laws.
• The appellants raised serious grievances about the functioning of the Administrative Head, alleging that he had not understood the ground realities, refused to meet with elected representatives, and issued orders without proper consultation.
• They also submitted that the Administrative Head had not visited the temple, which was essential for resolving problems and streamlining development.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents refuted the appellants’ submissions, stating that the steps taken were necessary for the administration of the temple until a scheme was framed and elections were held.
• They contended that the actions were taken to maintain the smooth functioning of the temple.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. When the entire proceedings in RFA was concluded by the 1st impugned order, whether the High Court, which had become functus officio and coram non judice losing its jurisdiction upon disposal of the RFA, was correct in entertaining the interlocutory application No.5 of 2022 and passing the 2nd impugned order; and
2. Contrary to the convention and practice being followed in the administration of the subject temple and its institutions thereunder that the elected bodies in vogue would continue till the next election, whether the High Court was justified in passing the 2nd impugned order, removing the elected Executive Committee and appointing an unelected 5 member Committee of its choice, under the supervision of an Administrative Head and an Advocate Commissioner, on the application filed to allow the elected Committees in vogue to function until the next elections.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any case laws or books. However, the Court considered:

• Clause 9 of the Bye-laws of the temple: Specifying the term of the elected General Body as five years.
• Clause 11 of the Bye-laws of the temple: Stating that the term of other elected bodies is co-terminus with the General Body.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the bye-laws of the temple to emphasize the importance of the elected bodies and the need to conduct elections as per the bye-laws.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring the smooth and fair administration of the Oachira Parabrahma Temple and its institutions, given the ongoing disputes and the unique nature of the temple. The Court emphasized the need for elections to be conducted in accordance with the temple’s bye-laws and the importance of having an impartial administrator to oversee the process. The Court also took into consideration the need for a final decree from the trial court for the scheme of the temple.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the arguments and the ongoing disputes, and decided to appoint a new administrator to conduct elections as per the temple bye-laws. The Court also directed the trial court to finalize the scheme. The Court did not directly rule on the High Court’s jurisdiction, but modified the order to ensure fair elections and proper administration of the temple.

The Court considered the need for an impartial administrator and the importance of conducting elections as per the bye-laws of the temple. The Court rejected the High Court’s order of appointing an unelected committee. The Court emphasized that the elected bodies should continue to function until the next elections.

“In the given facts, it is imperative to restore, protect and preserve temples and their properties with utmost care.”

“In such circumstances, we feel that it is just and necessary to conduct election under the aegis of a new Administrative Head/ Administrator, for the smooth and effective administration of the subject temple and the institutions thereunder.”

“The Administrative Head / Administrator so appointed shall commence the election process by finalising the voters’ list and publishing the same, etc., and complete the same strictly in accordance with the Bye-laws of the temple.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court appointed a retired High Court judge as an administrator to conduct elections for the Oachira Parabrahma Temple, ensuring a fair and transparent process.
• The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the temple’s bye-laws, particularly regarding the term of elected bodies.
• The existing administrative arrangements will continue until the new elections are conducted and the trial court finalizes the scheme.
• The judgment underscores the need for impartial administration and the importance of elected bodies in managing religious institutions.
• This case sets a precedent for similar disputes, highlighting the need for adherence to established bye-laws and fair election processes.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ramakrishnan, a retired Judge of the High Court of Kerala, is appointed as the Administrative Head/Administrator to conduct elections for the temple and its institutions.
2. The Administrator shall commence the election process and complete it within four months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
3. The Administrator can appoint two officers to assist him: one retired District Judge and one legal professional.
4. The Administrator shall be paid an honorarium of Rs.2,00,000 per month, and the assistants shall be paid Rs.75,000 and Rs.50,000 per month, respectively.
5. All expenses for the election and administration shall be borne by the temple funds.
6. The newly appointed Administrator can approach the trial court for any clarification/directions.
7. All parties shall cooperate with the new Administrator.
8. The previous Administrative Head/Administrator/Advocate Commissioner appointed by the High Court ceases to exist and shall hand over the charge to the new Administrator.
9. Existing arrangements shall continue until further orders from the trial court.
10. The trial court shall complete the final decree proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of dispute in the administration of a religious institution, the court should ensure that the administration is carried out in accordance with the bye-laws of the institution. The court should also ensure that the elections are conducted in a free and fair manner by an impartial administrator. The court also reiterated that the elected bodies should continue to function until the next elections.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Oachira Parabrahma Temple case underscores the importance of adhering to the bye-laws of religious institutions and ensuring fair and transparent election processes. By appointing a new administrator to conduct elections, the Court sought to resolve the ongoing disputes and ensure the smooth administration of the temple and its associated institutions. The Court’s directions provide a clear roadmap for the future management of the temple, emphasizing the need for cooperation and adherence to established procedures.

FAQ:

Q: What was the main issue in the Oachira Parabrahma Temple case?

A: The main issue was the dispute over the management of the Oachira Parabrahma Temple and the validity of the High Court’s order removing the elected committee and appointing a new one.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court appointed a new administrator to conduct elections for the temple, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s bye-laws.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court appoint a new administrator?

A: The Court appointed a new administrator to ensure a fair and transparent election process, given the ongoing disputes and the unique nature of the temple.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment for other religious institutions?

A: This judgment sets a precedent for similar disputes, highlighting the need for adherence to established bye-laws and fair election processes in religious institutions.

Q: What is the role of the administrator appointed by the Supreme Court?

A: The administrator is responsible for conducting elections for the temple and its institutions, ensuring that the process is free and fair.

Q: What happens to the existing administrative arrangements?

A: The existing administrative arrangements will continue until the new elections are conducted and the trial court finalizes the scheme.

Q: What should I do if I have a dispute in the management of a religious institution?

A: You should seek legal advice and ensure that the matter is resolved in accordance with the bye-laws of the institution and through a fair and transparent process.