Kerala High Court
Ravi Poovathinkal vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 21 December, 2023
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH
AGRAHAYANA, 1945
W.P.(C) NO. 34334 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
RAVI POOVATHINKAL
AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O. VASUDEVAN, POOVVATHINKAL VEEDU,
THONNUURKKARA DESOM, THALAPPILLI VILLAGE,
PIN - 680586.
BY ADVS.
C.K.PAVITHRAN
MEGHA SAJEEVAN
NEENU PAVITHRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE ROUND NORTH,
THRISHUR, PIN - 680020.
2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
OFFICE ROUND NORTH, THRISHUR, PIN - 680020.
3 ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVILWAMALA SUB
GROUP, VILWADHINADHAN TEMPLE, THIRUVILWAMALA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680588.
4 JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER,
ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU DEVASWOM, CHELAKKARA P. O,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680586.
2
W.P.(C) No.34334 of 2023
5 PRAKASAN NAMBIATH,
VELICHAPPPAD, ANTHIMAHAKALAN KAVU CHELAKKARA
P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680586.
SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 11.12.2023, THE COURT ON 21.12.2023 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) No.34334 of 2023
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.34334 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023
JUDGMENT
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
Anthimahakalankavu Temple is under the administration
of the 1st respondent. The petitioner is a devotee of the
Temple. The 5th respondent is the Velichappadu (Oracle) in the
Temple. In connection with Annual Festival in the Temple,
there is Vela Festival and there used to be Parayeduppu as
part of it. There are five Desoms within the local area of the
Temple and in connection with Parayeduppu, the Goddess is
believed to visit houses of the devotees. The Oracle in the
traditional attire, considered to be the incarnation of the
Deity, leads the Parayeduppu. The belief is that the
Velichappadu blesses the devotees during the Parayeduppu
and the devotees used to provide dhakshina to him. The
traditional attire of the Velichappadu, includes 'Chilambu' and
'Aramani'.
2. The 5th respondent, however, refused to adorn
Aramani. There arose objections from the devotees against
the Oracle and that resulted in presenting a complaint before
the 4th respondent on 02.12.2019, which is Ext.P1. In that
regard, Thantri of the Temple gave an opinion, Ext.P2,
wherein it was stated that wearing of Aramani by the Oracle is
mandatory. A complaint was lodged before the Ombudsman
for the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per Ext.P3 order dated
07.02.2020, the learned Ombudsman observed that wearing
of Aramani was mandatory. However, the Special Devaswom
Commissioner, after an enquiry, issued Ext.P4 order, wherein
it was observed that there was no practice of wearing of
Aramani by the Oracle. Although previous Oracle
Sri.Sankaravariyar gave an affidavit that the practice of
wearing Aramani was in vogue and the Temple Advisory
Committee submitted a letter to continue the practice of
Oracle wearing Aramani, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are not taking
steps to ensure following of that mandatory customary
practice. While so, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P7 order,
wherein the 4th respondent was directed to conduct a
Devaprashnam in order to resolve the issue. In the said
circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to approach this
Court seeking the following reliefs,-
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ,
direction or order quashing Ext.P4 order
No.M5.14623/2019 dated 13.05.2020 issued by the
Special Devaswom Commissioner;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ,
direction or order directing the respondents 1 to 4
to take necessary action to ensure that the 5 th
respondent follows the customary practice of
wearing 'aramani' and 'chilambu' during
'parayeduppu'."
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom
Board.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that from Ext.P5, which is an affidavit of the earlier Oracle, it
is evident that the practice of wearing Aramani by the Oracle
during the Parayeduppu procession had been ritualistically
followed and exemption was given to him for some periods
owing to his ill-health. It is stated in Ext.P5 that the
Parayeduppu procession started in the year 1975 and ever
since the Oracle had been wearing Aramani during the
procession. In Ext.P5, the previous Oracle averred that
wearing of Aramani is a customary practice and should be
continued. The petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P2, which
is purported to be an opinion given by the Thantri of the
Temple. The Thantri is seen opined that wearing of Aramani
by the Oracle during the Parayeduppu is mandatory. Placing
reliance on the said documents, the petitioner would contend
that wearing of Aramani by the Oracle being an integral part
of customary practices connecting to the Temple rites,
respondent Nos.1 to 4 do not have any right or authority to
exempt the 5th respondent from wearing it. The 5th respondent
being an employee of the Board, it is the obligation of the 1 st
respondent to ensure that he followed the traditional practice
of wearing the attire and any violation thereof is dereliction of
duty. It is submitted that the 1 st respondent has the obligation
to ensure that the traditional rites and ceremonies in the
Temple are performed in accordance with the customary
practice in terms of Section 73A of the Travancore Cochin
Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and any violation
thereof requires interference by this Court. It is further
submitted that Article 25 of the Constitution of India makes it
obligatory that the Devaswom Board ensures the freedom of
religion of every devotee, which includes observance of the
religious rites and practices in the Temple as per the
customary practice. When the 1st respondent fails to ensure
that the 5th respondent is not adorning Aramani, which is an
essential part of his customary attire, it is the right of the
petitioner to get the reliefs as claimed.
5. In the above respect, the learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on Sinha Ramanuja Jeer v. Ranga
Ramanuja Jeer [AIR 1961 SC 1720]. In that decision, the
Apex Court held that although a dispute in relation to religious
honours and privileges simplicities cannot be agitated before a
civil court, a suit to establish one's right to an office in a
Temple, and to honours and privileges attached to his office is
maintainable. It was also held that if a holder of an office in a
Temple is under a legal obligation to discharge the duties
attached to the said office, for non-observance of which he may
be visited with penalties. The learned counsel accordingly would
submit that what shall be the appropriate dress of the Oracle is
a matter concerning his legal obligation by virtue of holding of
his office and that is a matter liable to be adjudicated by this
Court as also a civil court.
6. As against the said contentions, the learned
Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board would
submit that the question raised by the petitioner is regarding
a customary practice concerning religious matters in the
Temple and there cannot be any interference by this Court by
virtue of the provisions of Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Standing Counsel in that
regard places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
Srivari Daadaa v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams
[MANU/SCOR/44237/2021] and also a decision of this
Court in Suo motu v. State of Kerala [2022 (3) KLT 53].
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that although the dispute is with respect to the
religious rites and ceremonies in the Temple, inasmuch as the
5th respondent being an employee of the 1 st respondent, his
reluctance to wear the Aramani, which is part of the
traditional attire of the Oracle, that becomes a dispute liable
to be decided by the court. Referring to the Explanation to
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned
counsel submitted that the dispute concerning such a religious
ceremony having related to the office of the 5 th respondent,
there cannot be a bar under Section 9 of the Code and, for
that matter, this Court is obliged to go into the question
involved in this Writ Petition.
8. It is true that the 5th respondent is an employee
under the 1st respondent. But no question concerning his right
to office is in contest for the dispute to be brought under
Section 9 of the Code. The question involved in this Writ
Petition cannot, however, be decided with reference to Section
9 of the Code. Hence, the question is whether the dispute
evoked by the petitioner is one coming within the exclusion
clause of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
9. Ext.P5 is one of the documents relied on by the
petitioner to contend that such a ceremony has been
religiously followed by the Oracle during the Parayeduppu
procession. What is asserted in Ext.P5 is that Parayeduppu
itself commenced in the year 1975 and ever since the Oracle
used to wear Aramani. If origin of such a practice is traced to
a period commencing in 1975, the petitioner cannot contend
that this has become a custom having its origin lost in
antiquity. Be that as it may, the question is whether the
petitioner has right to claim a writ of mandamus commanding
the 1st respondent to ensure that the 5 th respondent wears
Aramani.
10. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the Special
Devaswom Commissioner after enquiry into the matter. It is
seen that in the enquiry, the Special Devaswom
Commissioner gathered views of different sects of persons
and such views were not consistent. Therefore, he concluded
that there was no such practice and consequently he opined
that no direction to the 5th respondent to wear Aramani could
be issued.
11. From the observations in Ext.P4, it can be seen
that there has been divergence of opinion among the
devotees and others on the issue. The opinions expressed by
Thantri at various times are also not consistent. What
emerges therefrom is that whether wearing of Aramani by the
Oracle during Parayeduppu procession in the Vela in
Anthimahakalankavu Temple is a religious practice or rite
remains to be a disputed question. Yet another question arises
in that connection is whether it is a religious right and
ceremony in the Temple or only a custom unrelated to the
Temple rites and ceremonies. The 1st respondent, however,
issued Ext.P7 directing the 4th respondent to find out a
resolution to the issue by obtaining opinion in a Devaprasnam.
Thus the 1st respondent treated the issue as a religious
practice concerning the Temple and issued Ext.P7 for finding
out a resolution.
12. In Srivari Daadaa [MANU/SCOR/44237/2021]
the Apex Court held 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. The said principle was followed and explained by this
Court in Suo motu [2022 (3) KLT 53].
13. Here also, the question is concerning a customary
practice in connection with the Festival in the Temple. Such a
question, the views of Thantries and elders on which is not
consistent, cannot be a matter for adjudication by this Court
in a Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to
get the reliefs claimed in this Writ Petition. As pointed out
above, the 1st respondent already had issued Ext.P7 directing
the 4th respondent to find out a resolution. Hence, we are of
the view that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be a
direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to take necessary steps in
terms of Ext.P7 and arrive at a decision on the matter as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four
months.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34334/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
02.12.2019 PREFERRED BY THE DEVOTEES
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
02.12.2019 GIVEN BY THE THANTRI TO THE
DEVASWOM OFFICER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR
TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARDS
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. M5. 14623/ 2019
DATED 13.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL
DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY
SRI. SHANKARAVARYAR DATED 11- 03-2020
WITH TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
15.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE KSHETRA
UPADESHAKASAMITI
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER M4. 1728/22 DATED
14.01.23 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
