Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 516
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
JAYASANKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 39963/2023
SREEDEVI KYLASANATH, R.MAHESH MENON, SACHIN.P.K VARGHESE, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA, SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The court clarified that the Corporation has the authority to lease the 'Saraswathi Mandapam' for secular functions if there is no exclusive religious designation.
Headnote:
Temple - Religious Use - - Case Law Summary: The court evaluated the petitioners' claim about the religious status of the 'Saraswathi Mandapam' and examined the legal ownership and historical usage, concluding that it can be utilized for non-religious purposes by the Corporation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed that the 'Saraswathi Mandapam' should only be used for religious activities, arguing that the Corporation's leasing for a government program was illegal during the sacred 'Sabarimala Mandalam' season.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 'Saraswathi Mandapam' is owned by the Corporation and has been used for diverse non-religious activities, thus justifying its current use by the government, albeit without a fee.
Issues: Whether the 'Saraswathi Mandapam' is designated solely for religious uses or if it can be leased for secular purposes by the Corporation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without sufficient evidence of the 'Saraswathi Mandapam' being exclusively a religious institution, the Corporation's actions were lawful regarding its rental for secular purposes.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed, leaving the option to seek future remedies open.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners impel a grievance that the 2nd respondent –
Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, which is the admitted owner of the “Sree Saraswathi Devi Temple” and the “Saraswathi Mandapam”, has let out the said “Mandapam” to the Government, to be used as an Office for a programme hosted by it. They say that the “Saraswathi Mandapam” is a divine and pious area, which could not have been allowed to be used in the manner as has been done, particularly when the “Sabarimala Mandalam” season is going on, and when traditionally, it was being used for the purpose of “Kettunira” and such other rituals connected to it. They assert that the action of the Corporation and that of the Government agencies, in having used the “Saraswathi Mandapam” in such fashion is illegal and unlawful.
2. In response to the afore submissions of the petitioners, as made by their learned counsel - Sri.R.Mahesh Menon, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram – Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, submitted that the petitioners appear to approached this Court under a misconception that the “Saraswathi Mandapam” is reserved only for religious activities connected to the Temple. He affirmed that both the Temple and the “Saraswathi Mandapam” are owned by the Corporation; and explained that the former, in fact, was consecrated only two decades ago, while the “Mandapam” has been in existence for several decades past. He argued that the “Mandapam” has not been reserved for any religious purpose and is not a part of the Temple, but has been let out by the Corporation from time to time for various other non-religious activities and secular functions, as evident from the various documents on record, including Exts.R3(a) to R3(o). He argued that the attempt of the petitioners is to now obtain a declaration that the “Saraswathi Mandapam” is a Hindu religious institution, which cannot be used for any other purpose, except that in connection with the adjacent Temple.
3. Sri.Suman Chakravarthy reiteratedly explained that the Temple and the “Saraswathi Mandapam” are two distinct entities; and that while the temple is being preserved with all the sanctity it deserves, the Corporation lets out the “Saraswathi Mandapam”, as and when it is required to deserving causes and persons, by charging an apposite fee. He, however, conceded that, in the case at hand, since it is a Government function, it has been let out without charging any fee; but contended that this is within the competence of the Corporation to have done so.
4. When I evaluate and consider the afore rival positions, it is indubitable that if there is anything to show that the “Saraswathi Mandapam” is a religious institution, or a place and has been so used in the past exclusively, then certainly it would have been justified for this Court to intervene and accede to the request made by the petitioners.
5. However, to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.R.Mahesh Menon – learned counsel for the petitioners, conceded that the “Saraswathi Mandapam” is not part of the Temple; but asserted nevertheless that, in the past, it has been used only for activities related to it. However, I am afraid that this cannot be granted approval without further enquiry because, prima facie, based on the various records placed on file by the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, it appears that at least the area around the “Saraswathi Mandapam” has been used for non religious activities and even for commercial purposes. The question whether the “Mandapam” itself was used for such purpose is certainly is one that will require to be evaluated and considered, but which cannot be now done for want of more details.
6. As matters now stand, the case of the petitioners is that even though requests were made to allow the “Saraswathi Mandapam” to be used for the purpose of “Kettunira” and other rituals associated to the “Mandalam” season, they were disregarded by the Corporation and that it was offered to the Government for the
