Private entities performing public functions owe a duty to ensure safety, and failure to implement precautionary measures constitutes negligence under Article 21.

JUDGMENT

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

The 1st petitioner is the father of the late Dharani. In April 2004, he, along with his wife and their minor daughter Dharani, travelled from Tamil Nadu, where they ordinarily reside, to Palakkad. Their intention was to have dharshan at the Meenkulathi Bhagavathy Temple, Palayakkavu, situated in Pallassana Village, Kollengode, Palakkad. The said temple is a private religious institution owned by three tharawads and administered by the Pallassana Pazhayakavu Bhagavathy Devaswom Trust, an entity registered under the Travancore–Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, bearing Registration No.4/2015.

2. According to the 1st petitioner, he and his family reached the temple at around 10:00 a.m. on 13.04.2004. As per long-standing custom, the mother and child proceeded to b athe in the temple pond, which is considered sacred and is routinely used by devotees for ritualistic ablutions prior to entering the temple. The 1st petitioner states that while bathing, his daughter Dharani suddenly slipped into the deeper portion of the pond. His wife, in her attempt to rescue the child, was also pulled d own into the depths. Hearing their distress calls, other pilgrims rushed to the spot and managed to retrieve both the mother and the minor child. Despite being immediately taken to the hospital, the child could not be saved.

3. The petitioners assert that the tragic incident occurred solely due to the gross negligence of the 5th respondent, the authority in charge of managing the temple and its premises. He contends that although the pond was known to be unusually deep, the temple authorities had failed to install any safety mechanisms—such as warning boards, depth markers, ropes, barricades, or restricted-entry lines—to regulate and safeguard the entry of devotees into the pond. According to him, the 5th respondent, being the custodian of a public place of worship and a water body accessed by pilgrims, owed a heightened duty of care to devotees and had failed in that duty.

4. It is further stated that at the time of her death, Dharani was 12 years old, a fact established through the death certificate produced by the 1st petitioner. He has also p roduced school records from Devasahayam High School, Paasumalai, Madurai, to demonstrate that she was an academically bright student who excelled in her studies and extracurricular activities.

5. The 1st petitioner states that, overwhelmed by the trauma and grief following their daughter’s death on 13.04.2004, his wife passed away shortly thereafter on 18.04.2004. The death certificate issued by the Corporation of Madurai is produced as Ext.P4. He asserts that the twin tragedies left him devastated.

6. Seeking redress and to ensure that similar incidents do not recur, the 1st petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority on 26.11.2004. He was informed that since the incident had occurred in Kerala, his petition would be forwarded to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA). Acting on the guidance received, the 1st petitioner pursued his grievance before KeLSA and was thereafter directed to appear before the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Palakkad. Ext.P12 is a representation issued by the 1st petitioner to the District Collector, Palakkad. He states that he was advised to contact a legal practitioner nominated by the DLSA. Trusting this process, he handed over all relevant documents to the lawyer so nominated; however, the said lawyer failed to initiate any proceedings, resulting in his claim becoming time-barre