IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, P.G. Ajithkumar, JJ.
Vijayan Unnithan - Complainant
Versus
The Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board and ors.– Respondents
DBP NO. 64 OF 2024
Decided On : 05-11-2024
(A) Travancore Devaswom Manual, Volume II – Chapter II – Complaint regarding Paditharam in Muralikrishna Temple – The Ombudsman's report addressed the petitioner's grievance about the implementation of Paditharam, concluding that the Thanthri's opinion is final and that the petitioner's offerings do not necessitate a formal Paditharam. (Paras 1, 5, 7)
(B) Rights of devotees – The court clarified that a devotee cannot insist on specific nivedyams being included in Paditharam, and the Board is not obliged to accommodate individual requests for offerings. (Paras 1, 8)
Facts of the case :
The petitioner complained about the non-implementation of Paditharam in Muralikrishna Temple, asserting that he has been paying for palpayasam offerings. The Board contended that Paditharam is not applicable to the Sub-Deity.
Findings of Court :
The court found that the petitioner's requests for Paditharam were not supported by the Thanthri's opinion, which deemed such a request inappropriate.
Issues : The main issues were the rights of devotees regarding nivedyams and the authority of the Thanthri in temple rituals.
Ratio Decidendi : The court ruled that the Thanthri's opinion is decisive regarding temple practices, and individual offerings do not require formal recognition in Paditharam.
Result : The petitioner's request was declined, and the complaint was closed.
ORDER :
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
The learned Ombudsman for the Travancore Devaswom board submitted report No.31 of 2024 in complaint No.104 of 2022. The complaint was submitted with a grievance that the direction in the order dated 08.09.2015 of the learned Ombudsman in complaint No.434 of 2014 inasmuch as the implementation of Paditharam in Muralikrishna Temple, the Sub-Deity in Kunnamthanam Madathilkavu Bhagavathy Temple is yet to be implemented. The learned Ombudsman after having a due enquiry submitted the report mooting the following questions:
ii) Since the nivedyam 'palpayasam' is offered daily ever since the installation of the Upadevatha, whether it would be desirable to stop it abruptly rather than finding an alternative solution as already suggested to the Board.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Amicus Curiae for the Ombudsman.
3. The petitioner submitted complaint No.434 of 2014 before the learned Ombudsman. In that complaint, the learned Ombudsman submitted a report dated 08.09.2015, wherein the matter concerning the petitioner’s request to notify Paditharam in Muralikrishna Temple was relegated for the decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Paragraph No.4 in that report reads as follows:
4. The petitioner would contend that the Board has not taken a decision yet and therefore he is put to much difficulty. He therefore is obligated to meet the expenses of palpayasam vazhipadu at Muralikrishna Temple. He has produced a receipt evidencing that he paid Rs.2,480/- towards the charges for palpayasam vazhipadu for the period from 01.07.2022 to 31.07.2022.
5. The Travancore Devaswom Board took a stand that Paditharam cannot be notified in Muralikrishna Temple since it is a Sub-Deity of Kunamthanam Madathilkavu Bhagavathy Temple. Along with the report of the Devaswom Commissioner opinion of the Thantri of the Temple was submitted before the learned Ombudsman. The Thantri informed that fixing of Pathivu Paditharam in the Sub-Deity as requested by the petitioner was not allowable. The petitioner has been offering vazhipadu and he can continue it as long as he can. In the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in this DBP the Secretary of the Board also took a similar stand. Paragraph Nos.4 to 7 in the affidavit are extracted below:
5. The opinion of the Tantri is self explanatory and clearly answers the apprehension of the complainant. The Travancore Devaswom Board manages around 1248 temples. In all Temples there is Pathivu and Paditharam in which daily poojas, Masavishesham, Attavishesham and annual festivals are given in detail and the poojas are conducted without any failure. The Nithyanidanam, Masavishesham, Attavishesham and annual festival are ordinary ceremonies which are known as Pathivu. The items requir
The Thanthri's opinion is final regarding temple practices, and devotees cannot insist on specific offerings being included in Paditharam.
Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to practice prevalent in Sabarimala are performed promptly and to make proper arrangements for c....
The court reinforced that the Temple Advisory Committee must fulfill statutory duties regarding financial account audits while confirming the limit of writ jurisdiction to prevent unlawful directives....
The Court emphasized the need for administrative accountability in the conduct of temple rituals and the handling of administrative requests made under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Mandamus limited to directing consideration of representation by competent authority within time limit.
Point of Law : ‘Worshipper’ is a person who shows reverence and adoration for a deity. Right to worship is a civil right, of course in an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition i....
A ‘worshipper’ who shows reverence and adoration for Lord Ayyappa, is duty-bound to exercise his right to worship in an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition in Sabarimala.
A writ of mandamus requires the existence of a legal right and a statutory duty, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The court ruled that a compromise decree is binding on parties involved, and a temple advisory committee cannot re-agitate settled issues regarding ritual performance and fund collection without appr....
Only the Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act can conduct activities and collect funds in the temple; unauthorized committees are prohibited from interfering.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.