Ramachandran Nair, J

1. The central issue arising in these two connected W.P.(C)s is whether the younger brother of the last Ruler of Travancore could after the death of the last Ruler on 20.7.1991 claim to be the “Ruler of Travancore” within the meaning of that term contained in Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (hereinafter called “the TC Act”) to claim ownership, control and management of the ancient and great Temple in Kerala namely, the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple located at Trivandrum.

2. Briefly stated, all the temples which were under the control and management of the erstwhile Princely States of Travancore and Cochin, after merger of the two Princely States went under the control of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. However, under the Agreement of Accession signed between the two Princely States represented by the kings with the Government of India as a party, which came into force with effect from 1.8.1949, the administration of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple was “vested in trust” in the Ruler of Travancore. Travancore-Cochin became a Part B State under the Constitution until the State was reorganized in 1956 to form Kerala State. The TC Act was enacted after the commencement of the Constitution and in the said Act, the provisions of the Accession Agreement relating to Padmanabha Swami Temple were incorporated in Chapter III. It is by virtue of the Covenant in the Accession Agreement and later by operation of Section 18(2) of the TC Act, the management of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple continued to be vested in Trust in the last Ruler of Travancore. By the Constitution (Twenty Sixth) Amendment Act, 1971, the privy purses, privileges and other special rights of the erstwhile Rulers of Indian States were abolished by deleting Articles 291 and 362 and by incorporating a new provision namely, Article 366(22) in the Constitution. Even though the Twenty Sixth Amendment to the Constitution was made effective from 28.12.1971, the challenge against the validity of the Amendment was repelled and the Amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court vide judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench only on 4.2.1993 in RAGHUNATHRAO GANAPATRAO VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 191. The last Ruler of Travancore died during pendency of the cases before the Supreme Court and until his death on 20.7.1991 he continued to manage the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple by virtue of powers conferred on him under Section 18(2) of the TC Act. Even though there is no “Ruler” in Travancore under the substituted definition of Article 366 (22) after the death of the last Ruler and consequently the Ruler of Travancore referred to in Section 18(2) of the TC Act could be only the State, it allowed the management of the Padmanabha Swamy Temple to be taken over and retained by the brother of the last Ruler after the latter’s death. The legality and propriety of the take over of control of the Great Temple by the brother of the deceased last Ruler and the future of the Temple are the issues to be decided herein.

3. Public resentment started when the last Ruler’s brother, the first petitioner in W.P(C) No. 4256/2010, who after the last Ruler’s death took over the control and management of the Temple, arranged to take photographs of the treasures of the Temple and made a claim which was published in the Malayalam Daily “Kerala Koumudi” on 15.9.2007 stating that the treasures of the Padmanabha Swamy Temple are the family properties of the erstwhile Royal Family of Travancore. Several devotees approached Civil Court in Trivandrum filing Suits for declaration and for injunction against those who are in control and management of the Temple and in one of the cases the Sub Court after hearing all the parties including the Temple Employees’ Union which also opposes the present management, granted injunction against opening of treasure rooms (Kallaras) of the Temple. Even though an appeal filed a