1. Temple functionaries challenged a circular declaring replaced physical objects of divine sanctity as Board assets, arguing customary rights over such items under traditional ritual texts. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68046
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
M.S.SREERAJKRISHNAN POTTI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 5558/2026
Important Points
Ritual authority in a temple does not confer proprietary rights over the deity's assets. The administration of religious property is a secular function subject to legal regulation, and ritual prescriptions cannot justify the appropriation of temple property by religious functionaries.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Religious Endowments and Temple Administration
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 25 and 25(2)(a) - Religious and secular activities - Distinction between ritual authority and proprietary rights - Freedom of conscience and the right to practice religion do not immunize the secular and economic administration of religious property from regulation by law (Paras 18 and 21) - Wealth dedicated to a deity vests in the deity in perpetuity; any custodian holds such property only in trust for the deity and the community of worshippers (Para 18) - The authority to perform and supervise religious ceremonies must be distinguished from the right to own, appropriate, or dispose of the assets belonging to the deity (Para 24).
(B) Customary Law - Ritual prescriptions vs. Proprietary rights - While traditional ritual treatises guide the procedural and doctrinal aspects of temple worship, such prescriptions cannot be construed as conferring a legal proprietary right upon a ritual authority over valuables belonging to the deity (Paras 27 and 28) - Entitlements to remuneration and allowances are governed by the applicable legal and administrative framework rather than ritual customs (Paras 23 and 27).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, serving as ritual authorities in temples, challenged a circular issued by a temple management board. The circular stipulated that physical objects or metals having divine sanctity, which are damaged or replaced during rituals, shall remain the property of the board. The petitioners contended that according to a traditional ritual treatise, replaced items such as the deity's vehicle on a flag mast should be offered to the ritual authority as a donation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the circular was issued to regulate allowances and was consistent with the management manual, which requires all valuables to be entered in a registration record. It observed that the role of a ritual authority is primarily spiritual and ritualistic and does not extend to ownership of the deity's assets.
Issues: Whether a customary ritual entitlement described in a traditional treatise confers a proprietary right over temple property belonging to the deity, and whether an administrative circular retaining such assets as board property is illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that once property is dedicated to a deity, it acquires the character of the deity's property. The management of such property is a secular act and is subject to constitutional and statutory regulation. Ritual authority over worship and consecration does not equate to a legal right to appropriate the deity's property, and administrative rules governing the preservation of assets override ritual customs seeking proprietary appropriation.
Result: This writ petition is dismissed.
(B) Customary Law - Ritual prescriptions vs. Proprietary rights - While traditional ritual treatises guide the procedural and doctrinal aspects of temple worship, such prescriptions cannot be construed as conferring a legal proprietary right upon a ritual authority over valuables belonging to the deity (Paras 27 and 28) - Entitlements to remuneration and allowances are governed by the applicable legal and administrative framework rather than ritual customs (Paras 23 and 27).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, serving as ritual authorities in temples, challenged a circular issued by a temple management board. The circular stipulated that physical objects or metals having divine sanctity, which are damaged or replaced during rituals, shall remain the property of the board. The petitioners contended that according to a traditional ritual treatise, replaced items such as the deity's vehicle on a flag mast should be offered to the ritual authority as a donation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the circular was issued to regulate allowances and was consistent with the management manual, which requires all valuables to be entered in a registration record. It observed that the role of a ritual authority is primarily spiritual and ritualistic and does not extend to ownership of the deity's assets.
Issues: Whether a customary ritual entitlement described in a traditional treatise confers a proprietary right over temple property belonging to the deity, and whether an administrative circular retaining such assets as board property is illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that once property is dedicated to a deity, it acquires the character of the deity's property. The management of such property is a secular act and is subject to constitutional and statutory regulation. Ritual authority over worship and consecration does not equate to a legal right to appropriate the deity's property, and administrative rules governing the preservation of assets override ritual customs seeking proprietary appropriation.
Result: This writ petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Krishnamoorthy, Sneha Rose
For the Respondents: G. Biju, K. R. Sunil
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Krishnamoorthy, Sneha Rose
For the Respondents: G. Biju, K. R. Sunil
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed customary entitlement to replaced items as religious offerings; the Board contended that such items are temple property subject to secular administrative regulation. (Para 4 , 6 , 10 , 13 )
3. The Court observed that temple property, once dedicated to the deity, is held in trust; the State may regulate secular administration of religious institutions without violating freedom of religion. (Para 18 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 27 )
4. Religious authority over ritual procedures does not confer proprietary rights over temple property, which must be administered according to established secular legal and administrative frameworks. (Para 24 , 27 , 28 )
5. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the circular classifying replaced temple artifacts as Devaswom assets. (Para 29 )
6. Does the performance of religious duties grant a temple functionary proprietary rights over temple property?
No. The performance of religious duties or rituals does not confer any proprietary interest in the deity's property; such property is held in trust and its management is a secular function subject to state regulation. (Para 24 , 27 )
7. Can religious customs override secular administrative laws regarding temple asset management?
No. While religious customs are protected, the State retains the power to regulate the secular and economic administration of religious property through statutory and administrative frameworks, which override conflicting customary claims to ownership. (Para 18 , 22 , 26 , 28 )
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2026
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
1.This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioners state that they are the Acharyas/Thantris of various temples, including the temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board. They are the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Akhila Thantri Pracharak Sabha. It is stated that the rituals are prescribed by the procedure contemplated in ‘Thantra Samuchayam’ and which is accepted by the Travancore Devaswom Board also. The ‘Thantra Samuchayam’ describes the rituals and its procedure to be followed for the construction of Sree Kovil, installation of deities, installation of flag mast, etc.
3. It is stated that the rituals for the installation/replacement of the flag mast are to be carried out by the Thantri of that temple. After the said rituals, the ‘Vahanam’ of the deity removed from the top of the old flag mast will be handed over to the Thantri, and the Thantri (Acharyan) has the right to collect the same from the owner (Yajamanan) either as a ‘Dhanam’ (donation) offered to the Brahmin or the same will be melted and will be given to the Thantri. This is the custom and practice followed ever since, and the said custom is protected under law and the Constitution based on ‘Thantra Samuchayam’. The relevant portion of the ‘Thantra Samuchayam’, ‘Shilpa Bhagam’ is produced as Ext.P1.
4. It is submitted that the Devaswom Boards are considered as the Yajamanan (owner) and the Thantri is the ‘Acharyan’ from time immemorial. In the year 2012, the Thantri Samajam had made a demand before the Travancore Devaswom Board seeking revision of remuneration and financial benefits for the conduct of rituals in the temple by the Thantri and his assistants. Consequently, the 2nd respondent, Board, after hearing the members of the Thantri Samajam, has revised the Dakshina for the Thantri as well as the assistants. Thereafter, the Devaswom Commissioner has issued Ext.P2 circular, ROC No.21620/96/PR dated 17.09.2012. In the said circular, it is stated that the physical objects which were damaged or replaced by a new one shall be considered as the property of the Devaswom.
5. Challenging Ext.P2 circular, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :
“i. To issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to Exhibit P2, and to quash the same to the extent it says while conducting the rituals, if any material objects/metals, having divine sanctity, in whatever for shall be retained by the Devaswom Board themselves while replacing the same.
ii. To issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that Ext P2 circular, to that extent it covers the idols or ‘Vahanam’ installed on the top of the flag mast, while replacing the flag mast as a Devaswom asset is incorrect and illegal.
6. The 2nd respondent, Travancore Devaswom Board, has placed on record a counter affidavit as directed by this Court. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the disputed circular was issued after considering the contentions raised by the Thantri Samajam. In the said circular, it is stated that the items from which the Chaithanyam of the Devan has been detached by way of Avahanam shall remain the property of the Devaswom. Exts.P3 and P4 communications do not have any authority or binding effect to treat it as a precedent. Ext.P2 circular has an overriding effect over Exts.P3 and P4 communications.
7. For the sake of effective administration, the Board has issued several rules and orders, and the Devaswom Manual is a codified compilation of such rules and orders. Chapter XI of the Devaswom Manual deals with Thiruvabharanam and Bharanipathrom.
8. It is further stated in the counter that as per the Devaswom Manual , which is a procedural code, all the valuables, including fixtures such as flag-staffs, bells, Kampivilakku, Tharappuvilakku, etc., are required to be enter
