Cochin Devaswom Board's Power to Assume Management Not Unfettered, Kerala High Court Rules

The Kerala High Court on Monday quashed two communications issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board that threatened to assume management of the historic Ernakulam Thirumala Devaswom, holding that the Board's power to take over a religious institution is not unfettered and must strictly adhere to statutory safeguards. A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar passed the order while disposing of a writ petition filed by the Devaswom challenging the Board's move in 2017.

A Temple Under Threat: The Board's Takeover Move

The Ernakulam Thirumala Devaswom is a denominational temple belonging to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community, managed by a committee. In February 2017, the Cochin Devaswom Board issued two communications: a notice dated February 28, 2017 (Ext. P15) informing the Managing Adhikari of a statutory enquiry under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and a proceeding dated February 21, 2017 (Ext. P20) indicating that the Board had decided to initiate proceedings for taking over the management after the enquiry. The temple committee approached the High Court, arguing that the Board's actions were unconstitutional, arbitrary, and politically motivated, and that the Board had bypassed the mandatory procedure under Sections 98 and 99 of the Act.

The Board's Justification and Concession

In its counter affidavit, the Cochin Devaswom Board denied allegations of political vendetta. It stated that a complaint was submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala, which was forwarded to the Revenue (Devaswom) Department and then to the Board. The Board also relied on a report of the Ombudsman for the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards, which found no illegality in the issuance of the communications. However, during the hearing, the Board's Standing Counsel made a crucial concession: the references to "assumption of management" in the 2017 communications were not a final decision. The Board had earlier issued a public notice on April 21, 2017 (Ext. P21) clarifying that it had no intention of assuming management of any institution under Sections 98 and 99.

Petitioner's Apprehensions

The temple contended that the mere mention of "assumption of management" in the Board's notices created a genuine fear that the Board had already decided to take over the institution without following due process. The petitioners argued that the Board's power under Chapter X of the Act was not absolute and could be exercised only in specific circumstances enumerated in Sections 98A to 98E, and after conducting an enquiry under Section 99.

Legal Framework and Court's Reasoning

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act. Sections 98A to 98E specify the conditions under which a Devaswom Board can assume management, including mismanagement, neglect, or breach of trust. Section 99 mandates an enquiry before any takeover. The Court observed that the impugned communications appeared to have been issued without a proper appreciation of the scope and object of these provisions. More importantly, the Court noted that if the Board's intention was merely to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the Devaswom, it should have resorted to Section 87 of the Act, which provides a separate mechanism for conducting enquiries, rather than issuing communications suggesting an impending takeover.

Key Observations

The Division Bench made several significant observations, quoted directly from the judgment:

"The power of the Board to assume the management of an institution is not an unfettered one. Such power can be exercised only in the circumstances specifically contemplated under Sections 98A to 98E of the Act, and only after strict compliance with the statutory safeguards ."

"The mere use of the expression ' assumption of management ' in the impugned communications , without reference to the statutory prerequisites , was capable of creating a genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the Board had already decided to take over the management of the institution."

"If the object of the Board was only to inquire into the affairs of the petitioner Devaswom, the Act itself provides an appropriate mechanism. Section 87 of the Act empowers the competent authority to conduct enquiries into the affairs of institutions in the manner prescribed therein."

Court's Decision and Implications

Taking into account the Board's categorical statement that it did not propose to invoke Sections 98 and 99 to assume management of the Devaswom, the Court quashed Exts. P15 and P20. It clarified that if the Board proposes to initiate any proceedings against the Devaswom in the future, it must do so strictly in accordance with the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, after scrupulously adhering to the statutory procedure and the law laid down by the High Court. The judgment serves as a reminder that Devaswom Boards cannot wield their administrative powers arbitrarily and must respect the statutory framework designed to protect the autonomy of religious institutions.