Active Politicians Barred from Temple Trustee Roles, Kerala High Court Orders Fresh Scrutiny of Appointments

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has reinforced its stance that active politicians are disqualified from being appointed as non-hereditary trustees in temples managed by the Malabar Devaswom Board. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. directed the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board to re-examine the proposed appointments for the Puthanalkkal Bhagavathy Temple in Cherpulassery, following allegations that several candidates were active political figures.

The court ordered a thorough consideration of objections raised against the candidates within one month, ensuring a fair and transparent selection process that upholds the sanctity of temple administration.

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by P.P. Vinodkumar, a devotee of the Puthanalkkal Bhagavathy Temple. He challenged the potential appointment of respondents 8 to 12 as non-hereditary trustees, alleging they were "active politicians" and therefore disqualified under the Board's own guidelines and established legal precedent.

The petitioner had submitted formal objections (Exts.P3 and P6) to the Devaswom authorities, supported by leaflets and photographs (Exts.P7 and P9) purportedly showing the candidates' involvement in political activities. Despite these objections, the petitioner claimed the Board was proceeding with the appointments, prompting him to seek judicial intervention.

Arguments and Court's Observations

The petitioner's counsel argued that the appointment process must strictly adhere to the eligibility and disqualification clauses laid down in previous High Court judgments, which explicitly bar active politicians from holding such posts.

The court took note of its interim orders from December 2024 and January 2025, where it had directed the selection process to proceed strictly in line with its earlier rulings. During these proceedings, a report from the Assistant Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board was presented, which stated that respondents 8 to 11 were indeed active politicians and should be disqualified from consideration.

Reliance on Key Legal Precedents

The judgment extensively referenced a series of landmark decisions by the High Court that have shaped the framework for appointing non-hereditary trustees:

• Chathu Achan K. v. State of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT 388]: This case established that office bearers of political parties and active politicians cannot aspire to be non-hereditary trustees, as their primary focus should be on the temple's welfare.

• Anantha Narayanan v. Malabar Devaswom Board [2023 KLT OnLine 1195]: The court clarified that the term "active politician" is not limited to elected officials but includes anyone actively involved in the activities of a political party.

• Muraleedharan M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board [2024 (6) KHC SN 20]: This pivotal judgment laid down a comprehensive, transparent mechanism for appointments. It affirmed that guidelines from 2004, which disqualify "active politicians and office bearers of political parties," remain in force. The High Court had mandated a system of publishing applicant details, inviting public objections, and conducting a comparative assessment. Although the Supreme Court has stayed two specific procedural clauses of this judgment, the core principle of disqualifying active politicians remains intact.

Pivotal Excerpts from Cited Judgments

The court reiterated the principles established in its prior rulings, emphasizing the non-political nature of temple governance. Quoting the spirit of its previous decisions, the bench underscored the distinction between being a sympathizer and an active participant in politics.

From Suresh K. v. State of Kerala [2021 (2) KLT 885]: "There is clear distinction between sympathizing with a political party and indulging in active participation in the activities of the party. The taboo...will be attracted only if [the respondents] are active politicians or are office bearers of a political party..."

From Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20], referring to the 2004 guidelines: "...the following category of persons need not be considered for appointment ordinarily... (ii) active politicians and office bearers of political parties..."

Final Decision and Implications

Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court issued a clear directive to the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board to:

1. Consider the objections raised by the petitioner against respondents 8 to 12, along with the supporting evidence provided.
2. Conduct a hearing, providing an opportunity for the petitioner, the temple's Executive Officer, the hereditary trustee, and the impugned candidates to be heard.
3. Adhere strictly to the law laid down in the Muraleedharan M. judgment, subject to the interim stay by the Supreme Court on certain procedural clauses.
4. Complete this review and take a final decision on the appointments within one month.

This judgment serves as a significant reaffirmation of the principle of keeping temple administration free from political influence, ensuring that trustees are appointed based on their devotion and commitment to the institution's welfare rather than their political affiliations.