IMPORTANT POINTS• It inviolably mandates the Commissioner, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, to be in charge of not merely the temporal activities but also of the religious traditions and rites of the various temples; and, therefore, it does not require any further expatiation that such an officer will have to be a Hindu by religion.
• The TCHRI Act itself, wherein it inviolably mandates the Commissioner, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, to be in charge of not merely the temporal activities but also of the religious traditions and rites of the various temples; and, therefore, it does not require any further expatiation that such an officer will have to be a Hindu by religion.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. Prefatorily speaking, at the heart of all the allegations in these writ petitions; one of which has been filed by the President of a prominent political party, one by the former President of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the third by a registered Association of Thantris of various temples in Kerala and the last by an individual who claims to be a devotee and General Secretary of a registered Association of various “Hindu groups”, is indubitably an apprehension that certain amendments made to the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (for short, “TCHRI Act”), through the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 26 of 2018), is to illegally facilitate the appointment of a “non-Hindu” as the Commissioner of the Devaswoms governed by the TCHRI Act.

2. The ossature on which the contentions of the various petitioners are edificed in these writ petitions; which we are considering together in this judgment on account of the analogous nature of the factual circumstances and reliefs prayed for, is that through the amendments made to the TCHRI Act, the Government obliquely is attempting to appoint a person who does not profess the Hindu religion as a Devaswom Commissioner because the stipulation, that such an officer shall always be a Hindu, as was obtained in Section 29(2) of the original TCHRI Act, now stand deleted through the amendment. They say that they have, therefore, been justifiably warned and advised that the purpose of these amendments is only to pave way for the appointment of even “non-Hindus” into the Devaswom administration.

3. We have heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, Sri.Binoy Vasudevan and Sri.V.Sethunath, the learned counsel appearing for various petitioners in all these writ petitions; Sri.K.P.Sudheer, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Cochin Devaswom Board and Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, the learned Advocate General, assisted by Sri.V.Manu, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

4. For convenience and nothing else, we propose to treat W.P. (C)No.33856/2018 as the lead case and consequently, all reference to parties and documents in this judgment, unless otherwise specified, will be as it appears in this writ petition.

5. The petitioners allege that as per the original provisions of the TCHRI Act and in particular, Section 29, only a person who professes the Hindu religion can be appointed as the Devaswom Commissioner of the various Devaswom Boards under its ambit. They assert that the original unamended Sections 29(1) and (2) makes this indubitable:

“29. Board's control over the Devaswom Department –

(1) The Devaswom Department constituted in 1097 shall continue and shall consist of such number of Hindu officers and other servants as may be determined from time to time by the Board.

(2) The Devaswom Department shall, subject to the supervision, direction, and control of the Board, be under the Devaswom Commissioner who shall be appointed by the Board. He shall be a Hindu.”

6. As per the petitioners, through the Amendment Act, namely Act No.26 of 2018, three acme changes have been sought to be brought into the TCHRI Act: by insertion of a new Section 13B; by an amendment to Section 29 and by the substitution of a new Section for the original Section 74A. According to them, all these amendments read together, would lead to an inescapable suspicion that the attempt of the Government is to induct a “non- Hindu” as the Devaswom Commissioner.

7. When we examine the amendments that are sought to be made through Act 26 of 2018, we notice that Sections 4 and 8 thereof are intended to bring a new Section, namely, Section 13B and to substitute an existing Section, namely Section 74A respectively of the TCHRI Act in a particular manner. Sections 4 and 8 of Act 26 of 2018 read as follows:

4. Insertion of new section 13B : After section 13A of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, na