IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1944
DBP NO. 5 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.

------------

PETITIONER:

SUO MOTU
BY ADV suo motu

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001.
2 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ROUND NORTH,
TRICHUR-680 001.
3 DEVASWOM OFFICER
POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE,
THRIPUNITHURA DEVASWOM, THRIPUNITHURA-682 301.
4 ADDL.R4.SREE RAGHAVA PURAM SABHA YOGAM
REG NO:62/IV/2018, BRAHMASWOM MADOM, WEST NADA,
SREE RAGHAVAPURAM TEMPLE, CHERUTHAZHAM, MANDUR
P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, 670501, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRESIDENT
DBP No.5 of 2022
-2-

5 ADDL. AKHILAKERALA THANTHRI MANDALAM

SOCIETY BEARING REG.NO.Q.700/2010, KOLLAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
S.RADHAKRISHNAN POTTI, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O
M.SANKARAN POTTI, RESIDING AT KIDAKOTTU ILLOM,
KAPPILMEKKU, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., KARTHIKAPALLY
TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRCIT, PIN - 690533
6 ADDL. YOGAKSHEMA SABHA
REG NO:83/76, REGISTERED OFFICE AT OUTER RING
ROAD, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR-680101, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY,
M.V. SUBRAHMANIAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O M V VISHNU
NAMBOODIRI
BY ADVS.
K.P.SUDHEER ADVOCATE
T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI
P.B.KRISHNAN
P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SABU GEORGE
MANU VYASAN PETER
SRI S RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI
P.RAMACHANDRAN- AMICUS CURIAE

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR

ADMISSION ON 30.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DBP No.5 of 2022
-3-

'C.R'
ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J.

This DBP is registered suo motu, based on a news item

that appeared in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 04.02.2022 that,

as part of 'Panthrandu Namaskaram' in Sree Poornathrayeesa

Temple at Thripunithura, under the management of Cochin

Devaswom Board, the devotees are made to wash the feet of

12 brahmins as atonement for sins. The Registry was directed

to issue a copy of the proceedings dated 04.02.2022 to the

learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing

Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board and also the learned

Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman. A copy of the news

items appeared in Kerala Kaumudi Daily on 04.02.2022 was

ordered to be enclosed along with the proceedings.

2. On 08.02.2022 when this DBP came up for

consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin

Devaswom Board, on instructions, submitted that in connection

with 'Panthrandu Namaskaram' in Sree Poornathrayeesa

Temple at Thripunithura, the devotees are not made to wash

the feet of 12 brahmins as atonement for sins, as stated in the

news report. It is the Thantri, who wash the feet of 12

DBP No.5 of 2022
-4-

poojaries of Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, in connection with

'Panthrandu Namaskaram'. The learned Standing Counsel for

Cochin Devaswom Board sought two weeks' time to file

affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

3. On 25.02.2022, when this DBP came up for

consideration, the 2nd respondent Cochin Devaswom Board has

filed an affidavit dated 24.02.2022, wherein it is stated that,

when the above DBP came up for consideration on 08.02.2022,

the Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, based

on Annexure R2(A) written instructions given on 07.02.2022

submitted that, as stated in the news item appeared in the

Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 04.02.2022, the devotees are not

made to wash the feet of the Brahmins in connection with

‘Panthrandu Namaskaram’ in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple. On

the other hand, it is the Thanthri who washes the feet of 12

priests in connection with the ‘Panthrandu Namaskaram’.

Section 73A of the Travancore–Cochin Hindu Religious

Institutions Act, 1950 deals with duties of the Board. As per

clause (i) of Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to

see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice

prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly. In

DBP No.5 of 2022
-5-

terms of Section 73A, it is the duty of the Cochin Devaswom

Board to see that the regular traditional rights according to the

practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed

promptly. In view of the provisions under sub-section (2) of

Section 62 of the Act all rituals and ceremonies in the temple of

Sree Poornathrayeesa at Thripunithura shall continue to be

executed as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin. The news item

appeared in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 04.02.2022 is against

the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the practice being

followed in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura.

4. In the affidavit dated 24.02.2022, the 2 nd

respondent has stated that, based on the news item appeared

in Kerala Kaumudi on 04.02.2022, the 1st respondent State

sought for clarifications from the Cochin Devaswom Board. The

Board in turn sought for a report from the Assistant

Commissioner, Thripunithura and also the Devaswom Officer,

Thripunithura. Apart from that, on 11.02.2022, the Board

convened a meeting with the members of Akhila Thanthri

Samajam. In the said meeting a decision has been taken to

rename the vazhipadu as ‘Samaradhana’. By Annexure R2(B)

communication dated 21.02.2022 of the Commissioner, the

DBP No.5 of 2022
-6-

decision so taken was communicated to the 1st respondent

State.

5. By the order dated 25.02.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022,

Sree Raghava Puram Sabha Yogam, represented by its

President was impleaded as the additional 4 th respondent and

by the order in I.A.No.2 of 2022, Akhilakerala Thantri

Mandalam, represented by its General Secretary was impleaded

as additional 5th respondent. Later, by the order dated

04.03.2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022, Yogakshema Sabha,

represented by its Secretary was impleaded as additional 6 th

respondent.

6. The additional 4th respondent has filed a counter

affidavit dated 03.03.2022. The additional 5 th respondent has

filed a counter affidavit on 28.02.2022. The additional 6 th

respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 05.03.2022. In

the counter affidavits filed by additional respondents 4 to 6

various legal and factual contentions have been taken.

7. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for

the 1st respondent State, the learned Standing Counsel for

Cochin Devaswom Board, for respondents 2 and 3, the learned

counsel for the 4th respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for
DBP No.5 of 2022
-7-

the 5th respondent and also the learned counsel for the 6 th

respondent.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom

Board contended that as per clause (i) of Section 73A of the

Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, it is

the duty of Cochin Devaswom Board to see that regular

traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in Sree

Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura, are performed

promptly. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act,

notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of

Section 62, the regulation and control of all rituals and

ceremonies in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura

shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of

Cochin. Based on the news item appeared in Kerala Kaumudi

daily dated 04.02.2022, the 1st respondent State sought for

clarifications from Cochin Devaswom Board, which was

furnished vide Annexure R2(B) communication dated

21.02.2022. Apart from that the Board convened a meeting

with the members of Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and in

that meeting held on 11.02.2022 a decision has been taken to

rename the vazhipadu as 'Samaradhana'.

DBP No.5 of 2022
-8-

9. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the

learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent and also the

learned counsel for the 6th respondent would raise contentions

relying on Section 62 and Section 73A of the Act. They would

submit that 'Panthrandu Namaskaram' in Sree Poornathrayeesa

Temple at Thripunithura is a ritual, which has to be continued

as such, in view of the statutory mandate of sub-section (2) of

Section 62 of the Act, which starts with a non-obstante clause.

10. The learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st

respondent State would submit that, based on the news item

that appeared in Kerala Kaumudi daily on 04.02.2022, the 1 st

respondent sought for clarification from Cochin Devaswom

Board and the Commissioner furnished clarifications, vide

Annexure R2(B) communication dated 21.02.2022.

11. The specific stand taken in the affidavit filed by the

2nd respondent is that the devotees are not made to wash the

feet of Brahmins in connection with ‘Panthrandu Namaskaram’

in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura. It is the

Thanthri who washes the feet of 12 priests in connection with

‘Panthrandu Namaskaram’. The said fact is evident from the

counter affidavits filed by additional respondents 4 to 6.

DBP No.5 of 2022
-9-

12. Chapter VIII of the Travancore–Cochin Hindu

Religious Institutions Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board.

Section 62 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in the

Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62, the administration

of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu

Religious Institutions which were under the management of the

Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949

either under Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act,

1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious

Institutions Act, 1081, and all their properties and funds and of

the estates and all institutions under the management of the

Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the Cochin

Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62,

notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1),

the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in the

temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Trippunittura and in the

Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple at Pazhayannur shall continue

to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin.

13. Section 68 of the Act provides for administration by

the Board as a trustee. As per sub-section (1) of Section 68,

subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the
DBP No.5 of 2022
-10-

time being in force, the Board shall be bound to administer the

affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and

institutions under its management in accordance with the

objects of the trust, the established usage and customs of the

institutions and to apply their funds and property for such

purposes. As per sub-section (2) of Section 68, notwithstanding

anything contained in sub-section (1), the Board may, out of

the funds under their control set apart such sum as they deem

fit for the educational uplift, cultural advancement and

economic betterment of the Hindu community after providing

adequately for the purposes of the institutions which have to be

met from the said fund.

14. Section 73A of the Act deals with duties of the

Board. As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to

perform the following functions, namely; (i) to see that the

regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in

the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor

whether the administrative staff and employees and also the

employees connected with religious rites are functioning

properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of

the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain

DBP No.5 of 2022
-11-

proper facilities in major temples for the devotees. Section 74

of the Act provides for vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As

per Section 74, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of

Section 62, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or

exercised by the Ruler of Cochin prior to the 1st day of July,

1949 in respect of incorporated and unincorporated

Devaswoms and Institutions shall vest in and be exercised by

the Board in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

15. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel

for the additional 4th respondent has made available for the

perusal of this Court, the relevant extract of the remedial

measures suggested in the 'Ashtamangala Prasnam' conducted

in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple from 20th to 27th of September,

1999. The measures suggested in the 'Ashtamangala Prasnam'

with regard to 'Panthrandu Namaskaram' is extracted

hereunder;

"പരമപപധ നമ യ എല റ ന യ ആദ യ യ ഒര
ക രണവശ ല ഒഴ ച ക ട ന വ തത യ ന ത!മ യ 12
നമസ# ര വർഷത ൽ കന യ ല മ(നത ല
നടന വന ര ന കർമ വച നമസ# ര മ തല യവ കഴ യ օ
വവഗ ത ടങ കയ പ ർവ ച രത ന വ ര ദമ ക തവ ധ
ഭക പശദ പ രസര അവശ! ന ർവഹ വ5ണ
ത ണ.”
DBP No.5 of 2022
-12-

16. In Aruna Roy v. Union of India [(2002) 7 SCC

368] the Apex Court considered the importance of moral

values in religions and it was observed that religion is the

foundation for the value-based survival of human beings in a

civilised society. The force and sanction behind civilised society

depend on moral values. Religion should not be misunderstood.

The secular democracy requires even a very weak man hopes

to prevail over a very strong man on the strength of rule of law

by proper understanding of duties towards the society.

17. In Sarika v. Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir

Committee [(2018) 17 SCC 112] the Apex Court noticed

that there is a pious purpose of all the religious activities, no

religion breeds hatred. It is in order to bring harmony and to

understand basic human values and for self-realisation and to

visualise the concept of equality of pilgrimages by the various

sections of people of various religions. Secularism is the basic

structure of the Constitution that has to be given the meaning

that is developing understanding and respect towards different

religions. The essence of secularism is non-discrimination of

people by the State on the basis of religious differences.

In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri

DBP No.5 of 2022
-13-

Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [AIR

1954 SC 282] the Apex Court considered the concept of

religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It has

been observed that it secures to every person, subject to public

order, health and morality, a freedom not only to entertain such

religious belief, as may be approved of by his judgment and

conscience, but also to exhibit his belief in such outward acts

as he thinks proper and to propagate or disseminate his ideas

for the edification of others.

18. In Sarika (supra) the Apex Court noticed that

there is a constitutional obligation to preserve the religious

practices of all religions, culture and there is also a

corresponding duty to act in that direction. [Para.15] The Apex

Court held that it is for the experts in the field of religion to

decide about the rituals and ceremonies to be performed. It is

not for the Court to make suggestions in this regard. It is not

within the jurisdiction of the Court to dictate or prescribe or

restrain the religious practices and pujas to be performed in the

temple. The religious practices and pujas are required to be

performed in accordance with the ancient rituals and practices.

Paragraphs 44 and 45 of that decision read thus;

DBP No.5 of 2022
-14-

"44. With respect to the method of “lingarchan” i.e., the

method of linga pooja, the 27th chapter of “Ling
Mahapuranm” has been placed on record. That contains a
detailed method of lingarchan running into 54 strotam.
Apart from that “Shiv Mahapuranam”, Vayveey
Sanhita containing details of Shastrokt Shiv Poojan
method in twenty-forth chapter has been placed on
record. Pooja of different lingam may be somewhat
different. It is for the experts in the field of religion to
decide about the rituals and ceremonies to be performed.
It is not for this Court to make suggestions in this regard.
45. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to dictate
or to prescribe or restrain the religious practices and pujas
to be performed in temple. They are required to be
performed, as rightly pointed out, in accordance with the
ancient rituals and practices but, at the same time, it has
to be ensured that no damage is caused to the lingam.
The temple which is known as Mritunjaya Mahadev and is
most ancient Jyotirlingam in one of the ancient cities of
India, Ujjain. “Simhast” is also organised 6 years and 12
years which has international importance visited by
several millions of people. The Government spends
thousands of crores of rupees for development of
infrastructure in Ujjain for each such occasion and lot of
development has taken place. Owing to all these
development work, Ujjain has come up. But at the same
time very cause of all developments, the Lingam of Lord
Shiva requires to be preserved, protected by way of
preventive conservation methods.” (underline supplied)

19. In Srivari Daadaa v. Tirumala Tirupati

DBP No.5 of 2022
-15-

Devasthanams [Order dated 16.11.2021 in SLP(C)No.6554 of

2021] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with

a case in which the Special Leave Petition was against the

judgment dated 05.01.2021 of the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in W.P.(PIL)No.254 of 2020, whereby the High Court

dismissed that writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to

declare the action of the respondent-Tirumala Tirupati

Devasthanams in following the irregular procedure in

performing Sevas to Lord Shri Venkateshwara Swamy contrary

to the procedure prescribed under ‘Agama Shastra’ and

deciding not to obtain declaration form from devotees other

than Hindus as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the

respondent to follow the correct procedure prescribed under

‘Agama Shastra’ while performing the Sevas to Lord Shri

Venkateshwara Swamy and obtain declaration form from the

devotees other than Hindus before making Darshan. After

considering the rival submissions, the Apex Court noticed that

the reliefs sought by the petitioner, who appeared in person,

are in the nature of interfering with the day-to-day rituals in

respect of the temple, which cannot be gone into by the Court.

20. In Srivari Daadaa (supra) the Apex Court held

DBP No.5 of 2022
-16-

that, whether any ritual or sewa is being performed in a

prescribed way or whether there is any deviation from

established practice would raise disputed questions of fact

which cannot be decided in a writ petition. The procedure of

conducting rituals is in the exclusive domain of the

Devasthanam and cannot be a matter of adjudication by any

court unless it affects secular or civil rights of others. These

issues have to be looked into by the pandits or the scholars or

the advisors in accordance with the temple customs or the

established practice and procedure. These are not the issues

for which the Court possesses expertise. So, if the Sevas,

Utsavams and Darshanams in the temple are not being done

according to the set principles, the petitioner will be at liberty

to approach the civil court or the competent authority and

prove his claims with evidence, and it is for the respondent-

Devasthanam to defend the same in accordance with law. At

the same time, other than rituals, if the Devasthanam is

ignoring the rules and regulations or indulging in any other

violation of the prescribed procedure, etc., then the respondent

Devasthanam can consider these issues and clarify the same.

21. In the instant case 'Panthandu Namskaram' in Sree

DBP No.5 of 2022
-17-

Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura is a ritual performed

in that Temple from time immemorial. The said fact is evident

from the relevant extract of the remedial measures suggested

in 'Ashtamangala Prasnam' conducted in the year 1999, a

portion of which has already been extracted hereinbefore at

paragraph 17. The said ritual is one performed by the Thanthri

of the Temple, who washes the feet of 12 priests. The said fact

is evident from the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and also

the counter affidavits filed by additional respondents 4 to 6. As

part of 'Panthrandu Namskaram' in Sree Poornathrayeesa

Temple, the devotees are not made to wash the feet of 12

Brahmins, as atonement of sins, as stated in the news report

that appeared in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 04.02.2022.

22. In view of the provisions under sub-section (2) of

Section 62 of the Act, notwithstanding the provisions contained

in sub-section (1) of Section 62, the regulation and control of

all rituals and ceremonies in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at

Thripunithura, shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the

Ruler of Cochin. Similarly, in view of the provisions under

Section 73A of the Act, it shall be the duty of the Cochin

Devaswom Board to see that regular traditional rites according

DBP No.5 of 2022
-18-

to practice prevalent in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple are

performed promptly. Therefore, no interference with the

religious rite, namely, 'Panthrandu Namaskaram' performed in

Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, by the Thanthri is legally

permissible either by the Cochin Devaswom Board or by the 1 st

respondent State. As held by the Apex Court in Sarika

[(2018) 17 SCC 112], there is a constitutional obligation to

preserve the religious practices of all religions and there is also

a corresponding duty to act in that direction. The religious

practices and pujas are required to be performed in accordance

with the ancient rituals and practices and it is not for Cochin

Devaswom Board or the 1st respondent State to interfere with

such practices. In that view of the matter, we find that even the

decision taken by the Cochin Devaswom Board, as reflected in

Annexure R2(B), to change the name of the ritual as

'Samaradhana' is legally unsustainable.

23. We make it clear that we have not considered the

factual contentions raised in the counter affidavits filed by

additional respondents 4, 5 and 6, since the issue involved in

this DBP is decided with reference to the legal contentions

raised by the parties.

DBP No.5 of 2022
-19-

24. In Hindustan Times v. High Court of Allahabad

[(2011) 13 SCC 155] the Apex Court noticed that the media,

be it electronic or print media, is generally called the fourth

pillar of democracy. The media, in all its forms, whether

electronic or print, discharges a very onerous duty of keeping

the people knowledgeable and informed. The impact of media

is far-reaching as it reaches not only the people physically but

also influences them mentally. It creates opinions, broadcasts

different points of view, brings to the fore wrongs and lapses of

the Government and all other governing bodies and is an

important tool in restraining corruption and other ill-effects of

society. The media ensures that the individual actively

participates in the decision-making process. The right to

information is fundamental in encouraging the individual to be

a part of the governing process. The enactment of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 is the most empowering step in this

direction. The role of people in a democracy and that of active

debate is essential for the functioning of a vibrant democracy.

With this immense power, comes the burden of responsibility.

With the huge amount of information that they process, it is

the responsibility of the media to ensure that they are not

DBP No.5 of 2022
-20-

providing the public with information that is factually wrong,

biased or simply unverified information.

25. Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of the

media, be it electronic or print, to ensure that they are not

providing the public with information that is factually wrong

based on unverified information.

With the above observations and the finding hereinbefore

at paragraph 24, this DBP is disposed of.

sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN,
Judge

sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR,
Judge

bkn/-
DBP No.5 of 2022
-21-

APPENDIX
2ND RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS

GIVEN TO THE STANDING COUSNEL BY THE
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 07.02.2022.
ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE CDB TO THE
FIRST RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE