Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Harikrishnan T. V., S/o. T. V. Lekshmikutty Varasiar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) No. 8588 of 2025
Decided on : 12-09-2025
For the Appellant : SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY, SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI, JISHNU P.P., SMT.RADHIKAKRISHNA
For the Respondent: SRI.RAJMOHAN SR. GP, SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.), SRI.S.SUJIN, SHRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KERALA DEVASWOM, RECRUITMENT BOARD, SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.), SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SRI.SABU GEORGE, SMT.B.ANUSREE, SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER, SMT.MEERA P., SRI.V.SHYAMOHAN, SRI.C.VIVEK ,SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR , SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.ANAGHA MADATH THEKKEPATTE, SHRI.SAI DEEPAK J. (SR.), SMT.JAHRA K., SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR, SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
Important Points
Subject
Temple Administration - Hereditary Rights
Act Referred
KOODALMANIKYAM DEVASWOM ACT : S.10, S.14, S.2(g), S.26(2)(a), S.3, S.3(1), S.3(2), S.4
TRAVANCORE COCHIN HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ACT : S.62(1), S.62(2)
KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD ACT : S.18, S.2(e), S.9
Headnote
(B) Jurisdiction - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to legal questions and not suited for adjudicating disputed questions of fact, which should be settled in a civil court. (Paras 54)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, belonging to the Thekke Variam family, claim ownership of hereditary Kazhakom rights at the temple, historically performed for two months, contesting the temple authority's attempt to fill the post through direct recruitment for the remaining ten months. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The writ petitions, raising disputed factual questions, are dismissed, directing parties to seek resolution in a civil court, highlighting secular character of Kazhakom duties and necessity for evidentiary proceedings. (Paras 54)
Issues: The main questions addressed include whether Kazhakom duties are religious or secular and whether hereditary posts can coexist with direct recruitment. (Paras 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that disputed factual issues necessitate evidence for resolution and clarified that appointments depend on future civil court determinations. (Paras 54)
Result: Writ petitions dismissed, with parties directed to pursue claims in civil court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' claim for kazhakom rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural context of writ petitions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court responses to petition admissions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. counterarguments on kazhakom authority. (Para 11) |
| 5. petitioners' reply and additional arguments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. further procedural matters in litigation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. overview of arguments presented. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. issues for the court's determination. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. overview of the governing act provisions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. significance of essential religious practices. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 11. court's jurisdiction regarding religious matters. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 12. limitations on court interference in religious practices. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 13. clarifications on kdrb act's applicability. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 14. disputed facts to be resolved in court. (Para 52 , 53) |
| 15. final disposition of writ petitions. (Para 54) |
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioners who are members of a Varrier family, namely, Thekke Varriam, filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming hereditary Kazhakom rights in the Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple, Irinjalakkuda.
2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 notification dated 11.10.2023, Ext.P4 revision notification dated 07.02.2023, Ext.P7 order dated 24.02.2025, passed by the 4th respondent Administrator of Sree Koodalmanikyam Devaswom and Ext.P8 Koodalmankyam Devaswom Employees Regulations 2003 (‘the Regulations 2003’ in short) in so far as the recruitment to the post of Kazhakom in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple. In W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025, in addition to the above reliefs, the petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 4 to consider Ext.P6 representation dated 10.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the 4th respondent Administrator of Sree Koodalmanikyam Devaswom on 10.02.2025 in the light of Ext.P5 objection dated 16.07.2024 submitted by the 6th respondent to the 2nd respondent Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Managing Committee along with the opinion of respondents 7 to 12, after hearing the petitioner and respondents 6 to 14 and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court. Since the issues to be decided in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and documents are referred in this judgment as they are referred in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025, unless otherwise stated.
3. The pleadings in these writ petitions are almost the same. The petitioners state that they inherited the Kazhakom right in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple, Irinjalakkuda, by birth. According to them, the Kazhakom rights of their family are the integral and inseparable part of the worship of Lord Bharata-Lord Sangameswara, and are religious, spiritual, ritualistic and ceremonial matters pertaining to Devaswom. The petitioners are devotees of Lord Bharata at Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple and persons having interest in the temple as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act , 2005 (‘The Act’ in short). Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple is the only ancient temple in India dedicated to the worship of Lord Bharata.
3.1. The secular administration, control and management of Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple vests in the 2nd respondent Committee, which has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act. The 1st respondent State constitutes the 2nd respondent and appoints the 3rd respondent for the purposes of the Act. The 1st respondent exercises all pervasive control in the matters of appointment, administration, and functioning of the authorities under the Act, including respondents 2, 3 and 4. The State Government is exercising financial control over respondents 2 to 4 as well as the Devaswom. The 4th respondent is a
