IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection and preservation of religious practices and rituals, emphasizing the essentiality of religious practices and the obligation to maintain the sanctity of the temple, as outlined in the Koodalmanikyam Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioners are members of the Ammannoor Family. They have the hereditary right to perform 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' at the Koothambalam in Koodalmanikyam Temple. That is a part of religious, spiritual, ritualistic and ceremonial worship of the Deity. Members of the Ammannoor Family alone can perform at the Koothambalam and a member should undergo an ordination ceremony before starting performance in the Koothambalam. It being a religious and ritual ceremony followed from time immemorial in the Temple, the 2nd respondent, Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Managing Committee cannot change the practice. It is recognised as a cultural heritage of humanity by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

1.1. When the custom and usage enable members of the Ammannoor Family alone to perform 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' in the Koothambalam, there can be no dilution or alteration to that customary right. It is connected to temporal activities and the 2nd respondent, in exercise of its duties under Section 10 of the Koodalmanikyam Act, 2005 (the Act for short), is expected to continue the practice without any change. In the light of the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, decision of the Tantris of the Temple, who are respondent Nos.6 to 11, is final in the matter. Disregarding those aspects, the 2nd respondent resolved in its meeting held on 19.02.2022 to allow other Hindu artists also to perform 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' at the Koothambalam in Koodalmanikyam Temple.

1.2. Of course, the decision was to allow others without affecting the right of the members of the Ammannoor Family to perform in the Koothambalam during the period of the festival of 41 days. Resolution No.1 in Ext.P1 minutes is the said decision. In terms of it, the 3rd respondent Commissioner and the Government were requested to take steps for implementing the said decision. The petitioners would contend that the said decision is illegal and an invasion on their hereditary rights. It violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and the rights of the Deity as well as the devotees. Therefore, the petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare as illegal and quash decision No.1 in Ext.P1.

2. Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit justifying the decision of the 2nd respondent to open up the Koothambalam for other Hindu artists also, without affecting the rights of the petitioners. It is contended that the Koothambalam is more than two centuries old, which is considered to be the best of its kind in terms of design and functionality. The Koothambalam is intended for performance of 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam'. Now, the performance by members of the Ammannoor Family takes place for a few days in a year by leaving the Koothambalam idle for the remaining period. That leads to its poor upkeep and consequent degeneration. It is a heritage structure built up of wood. It was repaired and restored with the aid of the Central Government. It has to be put in regular use and thereby to keep away wood corroding worms and vermin. Now 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' are performed in the Koothambalam without audience. The public are allowed to view the performance only through the slits on the sides. Unless the audience is permitted, the purpose of such performance could not be served. Such a divide between the performers and the audience is not in the interest of the general public and also the propagation of the said Temple art forms. The 1st respondent accordingly maintains that the decision taken by the 2nd respondent is quite legal.

3. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:

The Koothambalam was constructed utilizing Rs.3½ crores allotted by the Department of Archaeology, Government of India. The decision taken by the 2nd respondent to allow Hindu artists other than members of the Ammannoor Family to perform in the Koothambalam does not in