Imperative To Restore And Protect Temples And Their Properties With Utmost Care: Supreme Court

The appellants, claiming themselves as elected Secretary and President of a temple viz., Oachira Parabrahma Temple situated at Kerala preferred these Civil Appeals against two orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala.

The 3-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan said, “At the same time, the fact remains that there are serious disputes in administering and managing the subject temple and its institutions by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and the alleged Executive Committee.”

As per the Supreme Court, the subject temple is a unique, ancient and historical one as there is no building, consecrated idol or deity and sanctum sanctorum. The management of the temple and the institutions being run under it are governed by the bye-laws of the temple. As per the Bye-laws, the administration is vested in a system of three-tier elected Committees, viz., Pothubharana Samithi (General Board), Pravarthaka Samithi (Working Committee) and Karya Nirvahana Samithi (Executive Committee).

The Appellant Nos.1 and 2 were elected as Secretary and President respectively of the Executive Committee in the election held during May 2017. However, in the year 2022, a new committee consisting of 11 members, including the appellants, assumed office. In the year 2006, some devotees filed a suit seeking to frame a Scheme for administration of the subject temple. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree directing framing a Scheme. The defendants who are Sthanis (Hereditary Trustees) of the temple, preferred a Regular First Appeal seeking a direction to the trial Court to make adequate safeguards for them. By the first impugned order, the High Court appointed Justice A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, a retired Judge of the High Court of Kerala, as the Administrative Head of the subject temple and the Trust/Managing Committee.It was held by the High Court that the Administrative Committee (the bodies elected as per the bye-laws of the temple) shall be under the supervision and full control of the said Administrative Head; until such time the scheme is framed by the Trial Court.

By the second impugned order, the High Court ordered removal of the elected Executive Committee and appointing an unelected Committee comprising persons of its choice contrary to the Bye-laws of the temple prevailing customs. Being aggrieved, the appellants who were the elected Secretary and President of the Executive Committee approached the Apex Court.    

The Bench noted there are some serious disputes in administering and managing the subject temple and its institutions by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and the alleged Executive Committee.

The Apex Court also noted that the subject temple is a unique, ancient and historical one and its area comprises a sprawling of 21.25 acres of land. It administers/runs a hospital, a Nursing College and a Nursing School, to cater to the needs of the general public. “In the given facts, it is imperative to restore, protect and preserve temples and their properties with utmost care. It is also an admitted fact that the suit for framing of Scheme for the subject temple is pending before the District Court and stands at the final decree stage”, the Bench said.

The Court further asserted, “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, which proposition has been agreed upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties.”

The Bench appointed Justice K.Ramakrishnan, a retired Judge of the High Court of Kerala as Administrative Head / Administrator to conduct election for the administration and management of the subject temple and its allied institutions, in a free and fair manner. It was also ordered by the Bench that the Administrative Head / Administrator so appointed shall commence the election process by finalising the voters' list. The Bench concluded the matter by setting the Head’s honorarium of Rs.2,00,000 per month and also adding a slew of directions.

The Bench further ordered that the Administrative Head would cease to exist and hence, they would have to hand over the charge / accounts to the newly appointed Administrative Head / Administrator with immediate effect.

Cause Title: Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 922]

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, Advocates Mugdha, Deepak Kumar Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal

Respondents: Senior Advocates Thomas P Joseph, V. Chitambaresh, Advocates Koshy John, M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Sriram Parakkat, Athira G Nair, Viddusshi, Aditya Santhosh, Anjali Singh, Anandhu S. Nair,  M/s. Lawfic, AOR Anshuman Siddharth Nayak, Advocates Rahul Kulhare, Gagan Singh Parmar, AOR Ekta Choudhary, Advocates Jeba Khan, Anand Krishna, AOR Bijo Mathew Joy, Advocate Gifty Marium Joseph, AOR Atul Shankar Vinod, Advocate R. Krishnaraj, AOR Tom Joseph, Advocate Dr. Linto KB, AOR Satyajeet Kumar

Click here to read/download Judgment