RADHAKRISHNAN, J. :- Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Ordinance 2007 which later became an Act are under challenge in these writ petitions.

2. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. 1950 was the subject matter of a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in P. M. Bramadathan Nambooripad v. Cochin Devaswom Board, AIR 1956 Trav-Co. 19. Contention was raised before the Full Bench that Sections 63 and 64 of the Act would amount to interference with the right of the Hindus to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion. Challenge against these provisions was repelled by the Full Bench and held that the restrictions imposed by Sections 63 and 64 in the choice of the members of the Cochin Devaswom Board did not violate Articles 14. 15(1). 19(1) (I) and (g) and 26 of the Constitution of India. Court also held that the classification of institutions and endowments based on religion. Hindu. Muhammadan or Christian cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable having regard to the object sought to be achieved the better administration and management of such institutions. Validity of some of the provisions of the Act again came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Muraleedharan Nairv. State of Kerala. 1990 (1) KLT 874: (AIR 1991 Ker 25). The Court examined the question whether Hindu M.L.As. have to give a declaration that they believe in God and temple worship before exercising their right to vote at the election of the Devaswom Boards and whether Hindu M.L.As. have to declare that they believe in God and temple worship before they get nominated to the Devaswom Board. The Bench took the view that only those Hindus who believe in God and temple worship can get nominated or vote at the election of the Devaswom Board.

3. History of the legislation and the situations prevailed prior to the coming into force of the legislation has been dealt with in detail in Paragraph 9 of the decision in Muraleedharan Nair's case, (AIR 1991 Ker 25). supra and hence it is unnecessary to trace out the history which led to the enactment of Travancore Co chin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. We are in this case concerned only with the question whether the amendment effected by Ordinance 5 of 2007 will in any way affect the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14,25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and also whether the secular government can make any inroad into the autonomy of the Devaswom Boards constituted under the Act.

4. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act has constituted a Board by name "Travancore Devaswom Board" under Section 4 of the Act as a body corporate for the proper administration of the temples which fall under its jurisdiction. The Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold and acquire properties for and on behalf of the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments under the management of the Board. Chapter II of the Act deals with Travancore Devaswom Board and Chapter VIII deals with Cochin a Devaswom Board. We will first deal with the various amendments effected to the Act by Act 5 of 2007. Section 2 of the Act deals with definitions. Section 2 (aa) defines "Hindu" to mean a person who is a Hindu by birth or by conversion and professes the Hindu religion. Proviso to that Section says that a Hindu member to be nominated or elected to the Board under Section 4 shall be a person who believes in God and temple worship and who shall make an oath before the Secretary of the Board to that effect in the form prescribed by the Government for the purpose before he enters upon his office. Above mentioned proviso was substituted by Act 5 of 2007 as follows:

"Provided that a Hindu member to be nominate-d or elected to