Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot adjudicate civil rights involving factual disputes; religious authority of the Tantri in Guruvayur Temple is final unless statutory provisions are violated.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners, who are the members of Puzhakkara Chennas Mana, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to protect and ensure that the religious customs, rituals, traditional rites and ceremonies, poojas, practice and usage in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple are performed in strict adherence to the age old Sambradayas without causing any type of alteration; a declaration that the 4^th respondent Tantri does not have any right or authority to alter in any manner the age old customary religious rituals, practice, usage, poojas and its time prevailed in the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Managing Committee and the 3^rd respondent Administrator to consider Ext.P4 representation dated 15.05.2024 preferred by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon; declare that the right of Tantriship is vested upon Puzhakkara Chennaas Illam and not on any individual in his personal capacity and the ritualistic karmas to be performed in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple is to be exercised by all the male members of Puzhakkara Chennaas Illam; direct the 2^nd respondent Managing Committee to take steps to restore to its original stage the rites, rituals and ceremonies, customs and usages existed in the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple prior to October 2021.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners who are Malayali Brahmins are the major male members of Puzhakkara Chennas Mana. The Tantric right (Tantravrathi service) of Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple and its subsidiary Temples are vested in Puzhakkara Chennas Mana. Being the senior-most male member of the family, the 4^th respondent happened to be the senior Tantri of Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple and an Ex officio member in the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee. On 01.10.2022, all members of Puzhakkara Chennas Mana assembled at the Illam and discussed in detail various aspects, including the Tantric rights of Chennas Mana in all temples, including Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple, and executed an agreement as a future guideline. Even though the 4^th respondent is the senior Tantri, he does not have any authority to modify or alter the age-old rituals, pooja, etc., prevailing in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple and other Temples. The 4^th respondent cannot obstruct petitioners from the performance of poojas in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple. According to the petitioners, due to unknown reasons, the 4^th respondent, on his own, decided to change certain age-old customs, traditions, usages and rituals prevailing in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple, by ignoring the objection raised by the petitioners and others. Any type of disturbance of the rituals, poojas, ceremony, etc., may impair the manifestations of divine force or Chaitanya of the Temple. When the petitioners objected, the 4^th respondent orally prevented the petitioners from performing their traditional Tantric duties and poojas in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple. Under Section 34 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, it is the duty of the Managing Committee to ensure that the Temple follows the established usage in regard to any matter. Under Section 10(a) of the Act, the Managing Committee shall exercise its duties, subject to the customs and usages in the Temple, and arrange for the proper performance of the rites and ceremonies in the Temple and the subordinate temples attached thereto, But, according to the petitioners, the Managing Committee failed to protect the customs and established usages in the Temple.

3. On 03.06.2024, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to address arguments on the maintainability of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, especially the declaratory reliefs 1 and 4, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of t