Court does not adjudicate on disputes relating to temple customs under Article 226; appropriate remedy lies with the Civil Court.

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner states that he is a devotee of Karimuttom Devi Temple situated in Peringala, Kayamkulam, which is under the administration of Travancore Devaswom Board, Mavelikkara. The said temple is an ancient institution connected with the rulers of Krishnapuram.

2. It is stated that the deity of the temple is taken out only on two occasions i.e., on Pathamudayam (10^th day of Malayalam Month Medam) and during the Makaram Jeevatha Ezhunellathu and Para eduppu and Anpoli. According to the petitioner, except the above stated occasions, the deity has never been taken out from the Sanctum Sanctorum for any private or family based ceremonies.

3. The petitioner further states that in the year 2024, the temple deity was taken out by members of a family residing near the temple and performed some poojas and rituals beneath the banyan tree (Aalthara) with the help of the temple priest. Later, this practice was followed by another fraction of devotees of the said temple. The petitioner further states that Temple Upadeshaka Samithi is also supporting the improper practice of taking out the deity in violation of the customary rites. The petitioner asserts that the devotees had no right to perform private rituals of their choice by taking the deity out of the Sanctum sanctorum. It is with these assertions, the petitioner approached this Court claiming the following relief:

“To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the Exhibit P1 and P2 application of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order directing that the temple deity shall not be taken outside the temple premises for any personal rituals of any family.”

4. Sri. Akhil Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P1 complaint before the Sub Group Officer, Karimuttom Devi Temple, alleging that certain nearby families were conducting some private rituals violating the customs and practices of the temple and without obtaining permission from the Board. He further submitted that the petitioner had also filed Ext.P2 complaint dated 26.11.2025 before the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Mavelikkara. The counsel states that Exts.P1 and P2 representations are pending consideration, before the Board.

5. According to the petitioner, the custom of Karimuttom Devi Temple is that the deity of the temple is taken out only on two occasions i.e., on Pathamudayam and during the Makaram Jeevitha Ezhunellathu, Para eduppu and Anpoli. Violating the aforesaid custom, some members of the family who are residing nearby have taken out the deity on numerous occasions and conducted private poojas. It is alleged that such activities are done with the connivance of the main priest and Thantri.

6. Therefore, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to consider Exts.P1 and P2 applications and to pass appropriate orders directing that the temple deity shall not be taken outside the temple premises for any personal rituals. The petitioner herein has preferred this writ petition claiming relief based on the customary rights and practices of the temple.

7. Sections 42 and 43 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023, specifically state the manner in which a customary right can be proved.

Sections 42 and 43 of the BSA read as under:

“42. Opinion as to existence of general custom or right, when relevant: -

When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right, the opinions, as to the existence of such custom or right, of persons who would be likely t