1. Section 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as amended by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2014, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioners are the non-hereditary trustees of Mammiyoor Mahadeva Temple, Guruvayoor, under the supervision and control of Malabar Devaswom Board. They were appointed as non-hereditary trustees of the temple by the Commissioner of the Devaswom Board, under Section 39(2) of the Act, on 22.10.2010. Section 39(3) of the Act, as it then stood, provided that every non-hereditary trustee appointed under Section 39(2) of the Act shall hold office for a term of five years, unless in the meanwhile, the trustee is removed or dismissed or his resignation is accepted by the Commissioner or he, otherwise ceases to be a trustee.

3. According to the petitioners, while they were continuing as non-hereditary trustees of the temple, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2012 was promulgated and by virtue of Section 8 of the Ordinance, the term of the non-hereditary trustees, as provided for under Section 39(3) of the Act, was reduced to two years from five years. Section 9 of the Ordinance provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, the non-hereditary trustees of the temples in office as on the date of commencement of the Ordinance shall cease to hold office on the date of commencement of the Ordinance. The writ petition was filed initially, challenging the amendment made to Section 39 of the Act as per the Ordinance. They also sought a declaration that they are entitled to continue as non-hereditary trustees of Mammiyoor Mahadeva Temple, Guruvayoor, till their normal tenure expires. By interim order dated 20.12.2012, this Court directed that the respondents shall permit the petitioners to continue in office as non-hereditary trustees of the temple, irrespective of the issuance of the Ordinance, pending final disposal of the writ petition. On the basis of the said interim order, petitioners are continuing even now, as non-hereditary trustees of the temple.

4. The Ordinance referred to above was replaced on 3.2.2014 by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2014, hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act. When the Ordinance was replaced by the Amendment Act, the writ petition was amended, challenging Section 39 of the Act, as amended by the Amendment Act.

5. Sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 39 of the Act read as follows:-

"39. Trustees and their number and term of office –

(2) Where, in the case of any such institution having a hereditary trustee or trustees; the Commissioner after notice to such trustee or trustees and after such enquiry as he deems adequate, considers for reasons to be recorded, that the affairs of the institution are not, and are not likely to be, properly managed by the hereditary trustee or trustees, the Commissioner may, by order appoint such number of non-hereditary trustees as he thinks necessary, so however that the total number of trustees does not exceed five.

(3) Every trustee appointed under sub-section (1) and subject to the result of an application, if any, filed under sub-section (4) every non-hereditary trustee appointed under sub-section (2) shall hold office for a term of five years, unless in the meanwhile the trustee is removed or dismissed or his resignation is accepted by the Commissioner or he otherwise ceases to be a trustee."

Section 7 of the Amendment Act, which is impugned in the writ petition reads thus:-

"7. Amendment of Section 39 – In sub-section (3) of section 39 of the principal Act, for the words five years the words two years shall be substituted."

6. The challenge to the Amendment Act is on the ground that there are no reasons at all to remove the petitioners from office and the Amendment Act was introduced with the