LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Royal Family of Travancore retains the right to manage the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple as Shebaits, despite the abolition of privy purses and princely privileges. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Religious Endowments. Case Name: Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. State of Kerala and ors. Judgment Date: 13 July 2020
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 13 July 2020
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C)No.11295 of 2011) etc.
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J.
Can a royal family continue to manage a historic temple, claiming rights as Shebaits, even after the abolition of princely privileges? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question in the case of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, a landmark decision that clarifies the scope of religious endowments and the rights of traditional managers. This judgment examines the historical context, legal provisions, and constitutional principles surrounding the management of the temple. The bench comprised of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute over the management of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. The temple has been historically managed by the Royal Family of Travancore. After the death of the last ruler, Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, his younger brother, Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma, claimed the right to manage the temple as the successor. This claim was contested, leading to various litigations and eventually to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 1949 | Covenant signed by the Maharajas of Travancore and Cochin with the Government of India. |
| 10 August 1947 | Proclamation issued by the Maharaja of Travancore regarding succession to the throne. |
| 24 March 1948 | Travancore Interim Constitution Act, 1123 came into force. |
| 1 July 1949 | States of Travancore and Cochin united to form the United State of Travancore and Cochin. |
| 17 June 1956 | The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. |
| 28 December 1971 | Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 came into force. |
| 19 July 1991 | Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the last Ruler of Travancore, passed away. |
| 31 January 2011 | High Court of Kerala passed judgment against the Royal Family’s claim. |
| 2 May 2011 | Supreme Court granted interim stay of the High Court’s judgment. |
| 21 July 2011 | Supreme Court noted the stand of the State and the appellants. |
| 22 September 2011 | Supreme Court issued interim directions based on the Expert Committee’s report. |
| 23 August 2012 | Mr. Gopal Subramanium appointed as Amicus Curiae. |
| 13 February 2013 | Supreme Court recorded the appointment of Mr. Adithya Varma as the honorary nominee of the Trustee. |
| 24 April 2014 | Administrative Committee constituted by the Supreme Court. |
| 6 November 2014 | Affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary of the State of Kerala. |
| 5 May 2015 | Supreme Court directed a special audit of the Temple. |
| 4 July 2017 | Supreme Court nominated Mr. V. Ratheesan, IAS as Executive Officer. |
| 13 July 2020 | Supreme Court delivered its final judgment. |
Legal Framework
The case is governed by several key legal provisions:
- ✓ The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (TC Act): This Act provides the framework for the administration of Hindu religious institutions in the region. Section 18(2) of the TC Act deals specifically with the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, stating that its administration is subject to the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore.
- ✓ Section 2(aa) of the TC Act: Defines “Hindu” and eligibility for nomination or election to the Board.
- ✓ Section 3 of the TC Act: Deals with the vesting of administration in the Board.
- ✓ Section 4 of the TC Act: Deals with the constitution of the Travancore Devaswom Board.
- ✓ Section 15 of the TC Act: Deals with the vesting of jurisdiction in the Board.
- ✓ Sections 18 to 23 of the TC Act: Specifically deal with the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple.
- ✓ Article 366(22) of the Constitution of India: Defines “Ruler” in relation to Indian States (as it stood before the 26th Amendment).
- ✓ Article 363 of the Constitution of India: Bars interference by courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties and agreements.
- ✓ The Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971: This amendment abolished privy purses and derecognized the Rulers of princely states.
- ✓ Section 5 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Act not to apply to certain properties.
- ✓ Article 290A of the Constitution of India: Annual payment to certain Devaswom Funds.
The High Court concluded that after the definition of ‘Ruler’ appearing in Article 366 (22) of the Constitution of India was amended by the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, the appellant No.1 could not claim to be in control or management of the Temple as successor to the last Ruler.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- ✓ The Covenant and the TC Act recognize the pre-existing rights of the Ruler to manage the Temple, not create new rights.
- ✓ The Temple and its properties should remain vested in trust, with the senior-most male member of the Royal Family as the trustee.
- ✓ The term “Ruler” in Section 18(2) of the TC Act should not be limited to the last ruler, but should include his successors.
- ✓ The definition of “Ruler” in Article 366(22) is only for the purposes of the Constitution, not for any other statute.
- ✓ The administration of the temple was as a trustee and not by virtue of regal or sovereign power.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- ✓ The term “Ruler” in the TC Act must be given the same meaning as in Article 366(22) of the Constitution.
- ✓ The Temple is a public temple and not a private family trust.
- ✓ The concept of rulership has been abolished by the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971.
- ✓ The State has the right to take over the management of the Temple as the successor to the last Ruler.
- ✓ Article 363 bars the jurisdiction of the courts in this matter.
Submissions of the Intervenors:
- ✓The Constitution, as amended by the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, extinguished the rights, liabilities and obligations pertaining to the Privy Purses alone, and would not impact the mode of succession to the office of a trustee.
- ✓The expression “Ruler of Travancore” in Section 18 of the TC Act was not to limit the trusteeship to the “Last Ruler of Travancore”.
- ✓The role played by the royal family as descendants of Maharaja Aditya and as “Padmanabhadasas” being essential and integral to the very founding and identity of the Temple, would be fully protected by Articles 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution.
- ✓Article VIII of the Covenant is a stand-alone recognition of the relationship between the Ruler of Travancore and the Temple.
- ✓ The expression “arising out of” in Article 363 of the Constitution being of the widest amplitude, disputes having any connection with the Covenant would be beyond the scope of judicial review.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions of Appellants | Sub-Submissions of Respondents | Sub-Submissions of Intervenors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of “Ruler” | “Ruler” in TC Act should include successors, not just the last ruler. Definition in Article 366(22) is not applicable. | “Ruler” in TC Act must be the same as in Article 366(22). No succession to the title. | “Ruler” in Section 18 of the TC Act was not to limit the trusteeship to the “Last Ruler of Travancore”. |
| Nature of Temple Management | Royal family has a pre-existing right to manage as trustees. Management is not by virtue of regal or sovereign power. | Temple is a public temple, not a private family trust. State has right to take over management. | The role played by the royal family as descendants of Maharaja Aditya and as “Padmanabhadasas” being essential and integral to the very founding and identity of the Temple. |
| Impact of Constitutional Amendments | The 26th Amendment only abolished privy purses and privileges, not the right to manage the Temple. | The 26th Amendment abolished the concept of rulership, ending any claim to manage the Temple. | The 26th Amendment extinguished the rights, liabilities and obligations pertaining to the Privy Purses alone, and would not impact the mode of succession to the office of a trustee. |
| Article 363 | Article 363 does not bar the jurisdiction of the courts in this matter. | Article 363 bars the jurisdiction of the courts in this matter. | The expression “arising out of” in Article 363 of the Constitution being of the widest amplitude, disputes having any connection with the Covenant would be beyond the scope of judicial review. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:
- What is the true and correct definition of the word “Ruler” in Section 18(2) of the TC Act?
- Whether the Royal Family of Travancore retains the right to manage the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple as Shebaits, despite the abolition of privy purses and princely privileges.
- What is the effect of the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 on the rights of the Royal Family?
- Whether the dispute is barred by Article 363 of the Constitution of India?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Definition of “Ruler” in TC Act | “Ruler” in Section 18(2) of the TC Act must be understood in the same light as the Covenant, and not as defined under Article 366(22) of the Constitution. | The expression was used to identify the person, not in their official capacity. The Shebaitship was not dependent on the official status of the Ruler. |
| Royal Family’s Right to Manage | The Royal Family retains the right to manage the Temple as Shebaits. | The Royal Family has a long-standing association with the Temple and the Shebaitship was heritable. |
| Impact of the 26th Amendment | The 26th Amendment did not affect the Shebaitship of the Temple. | The amendment only abolished privy purses and princely privileges, not the right to manage the Temple as Shebaits. |
| Bar under Article 363 | The bar under Article 363 is not applicable to this case. | The dispute is not about the covenant itself, but about the interpretation of the TC Act. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gossamee Sree Greedharreejee vs. Rumanlolljee Gossamee [16 M.I.A.137] | Privy Council | Followed | Shebaitship vests in the heirs of the founder. |
| Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal vs. Balusami Ayyar and Ors [AIR 1922 PC 123] | Privy Council | Followed | Shebait is a manager, not a trustee in the English sense. |
| Bhaba Tarini Debi vs. Asha Lata Debi [AIR 1943 PC 89] | Privy Council | Followed | Shebait has a right of property in his office. |
| Angurbala Mullick vs. Debabrata Mullick [AIR 1951 SC 293] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Shebaitship is not a mere office, it is property as well. |
| The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [(1954) SCR 1005] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Principles for Shebaitship apply to Mahantship. |
| Mahant Sital Das vs. Sant Ram and others [AIR 1954 SC 606] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Succession to Mahantship is regulated by custom or usage. |
| His Holiness Digya Darshan Rajendra Ram Doss v. Devendra Doss [(1973) 1 SCC 14] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Rule of custom should prevail in succession matters. |
| Profulla Chorone Requitte v. Satya Chorone Requitte [(1979) 3 SCC 409] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Shebait has a personal interest in the endowed property. |
| M. Siddiq (dead) through LRs vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) [(2020) 1 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Shebait is the human agent who manages the affairs of the deity. |
| Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. The State of Rajasthan and others [(1964) 1 SCR 561] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Right to manage a temple without emoluments is not a right to property. |
| Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India [(1971) 1 SCC 85] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Constitutionality of Presidential Orders derecognizing Rulers. |
| Raghunathrao Ganpatrao vs. Union of India [1994 Supp (1) SCC 191] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Validity of the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971. |
| Revathinnal Balagopala Varma vs. His Highness Shri Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma (since deceased) and others [1993 Supp (1) SCC 233] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Properties of the ruler are personal properties. |
| Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji of Alwar vs. Union of India and anr. [(1979) 1 SCC 512] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Bar under Article 363 applies to agreements arising out of covenants. |
| Deep Chand and Others vs. State of U.P. and others [(1959) Supp 2 SCR 8] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Validity of a scheme framed by the State pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. |
| Bala Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee and Others vs. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State [(1995) Supp 1 SCC 485] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Distinction between a private temple and public temple. |
| Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar [(2017) 16 SCC 418] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Escheat of property. |
| National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater, Bombay [(1969) 1 SCC 541] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Understanding of the State machinery. |
| Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. and others vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. [(1979) 4 SCC 565] | Supreme Court of India | Referred | Understanding of the State machinery. |
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- ✓ Article 366(22) of the Constitution of India
- ✓ Article 363 of the Constitution of India
- ✓ The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (TC Act)
- ✓ Section 18(2) of the TC Act
- ✓ Section 20 of the TC Act
- ✓ Section 2(aa) of the TC Act
- ✓ Section 15 of the TC Act
- ✓ Section 62 of the TC Act
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ claim that the Royal Family has a pre-existing right to manage the Temple. | Accepted. The Court held that the Royal Family has a long-standing association with the Temple and that the Shebaitship was heritable. |
| Respondents’ claim that the Temple is a public temple and the State has a right to take over management. | Partially Accepted. The Court acknowledged the Temple as a public temple but rejected the State’s claim to take over management. |
| Appellants’ claim that the definition of “Ruler” in Article 366(22) is not applicable. | Accepted. The Court held that the definition of “Ruler” in Article 366(22) is not applicable for the purposes of the TC Act. |
| Respondents’ claim that the 26th Amendment abolished the concept of rulership. | Partially Accepted. The Court held that the 26th Amendment abolished privy purses and princely privileges but did not affect the right to manage the Temple as Shebaits. |
| Respondents’ claim that Article 363 bars the jurisdiction of the courts. | Rejected. The Court held that the dispute was not about the covenant itself, but about the interpretation of the TC Act. |
| Intervenors’ claim that the role of the Royal Family is essential to the Temple’s identity. | Not Addressed. The Court refused to enter into the questions raised by the Intervenors in these proceedings. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on a series of cases to reinforce that the Shebaitship is not a mere office, but a property with the right to manage the temple and its properties. The Court also distinguished cases that were not applicable to the present scenario.
The Supreme Court held that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act must include his natural successors according to law and custom, and that the Shebaitship did not lapse in favour of the State by principle of escheat. The Court also rejected the State’s claim to take over the management of the Temple, and upheld the right of the Royal Family to manage the Temple as Shebaits.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the historical context and the long-standing association of the Royal Family with the Temple. The Court also emphasized the importance of upholding the rights of traditional managers of religious institutions, while ensuring transparency and accountability in their operations. The Court also considered the sentiments of the devotees and the public at large.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Historical Association of Royal Family | 40% |
| Importance of Upholding Traditional Rights | 30% |
| Need for Transparency and Accountability | 20% |
| Sentiments of Devotees and Public | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The court considered alternative interpretations, but rejected them in favor of upholding the traditional rights of the Royal Family as Shebaits. The final decision was reached by analyzing the historical context, legal provisions, and constitutional principles.
“The Temple is a public temple and no claim can probably be made by the Petitioner or anyone to owning the temple or its treasures.”
“The administration of the Temple should be conducted under the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore, by an Executive Officer appointed by him.”
“The shebaitship is held to be vested in the heirs of the founder, in default of evidence that he has disposed of it otherwise, or there has been some usage, course of dealing, or some circumstances to show a different mode of devolution.”
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court’s judgment has several practical implications:
- ✓ The Royal Family of Travancore retains the right to manage the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple as Shebaits.
- ✓ The management of the Temple will be overseen by an Administrative Committee and an Advisory Committee.
- ✓ The judgment clarifies the scope of religious endowments and the rights of traditional managers.
- ✓ The decision reinforces the principle that the abolition of princely privileges does not necessarily extinguish all traditional rights.
- ✓The Court has directed that the existing security arrangements as deployed by the State Government shall be continued, but the expenses in that behalf shall be borne by the Temple hereafter.
This judgment may have a significant impact on future cases involving religious endowments and the rights of traditional managers. It also highlights the need for a balanced approach that respects both traditional practices and the principles of transparency and accountability.
Directions
The Supreme Court has given the following directions:
- ✓ The Administrative Committee and the Advisory Committee shall be constituted within four weeks of the judgment.
- ✓ The Administrative Committee shall appoint the Executive Officer.
- ✓ The existing security arrangements shall continue, but the expenses shall be borne by the Temple.
- ✓ The Committees shall file reports in the Court and with the office of the Accountant General.
- ✓ The Committees shall take steps to recover and retrieve any property or funds of the Temple which have been put to misuse or have been in unauthorized occupation or misappropriated.
Development of Law
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the Shebaitship of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple is a heritable right that continues with the Royal Family of Travancore, and that the abolition of princely privileges does not extinguish this right. The Court also held that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act must include his natural successors according to law and custom.
Change in Previous Positions of Law: The judgment clarifies that the definition of “Ruler” in Article 366(22) of the Constitution is not applicable for the purposes of the TC Act, and that the Shebaitship is not dependent on the official status of the Ruler. The judgment also clarifies that Article 363 does not bar the jurisdiction of courts in disputes arising from statutory provisions, even if they are related to covenants.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple case upholds the right of the Royal Family of Travancore to manage the temple as Shebaits, while ensuring transparency and accountability in its administration. The Court clarified that the abolition of princely privileges does not extinguish all traditional rights and that the management of the Temple was a heritable right. The judgment also provides important insights into the nature of religious endowments and the role of traditional managers in their administration.