Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Devasom Board as a State Entity - The Travancore Devasom Board functions as a statutory body involved in temple administration and appointments, acting under the authority of the Kerala State government. It makes decisions on vacancies, permissions, and temple management, indicating its status as a state-like body with delegated powers. For example, one source states, The Travancore Devasom Board has intimated 16 more vacancies pursuant to the interim order... for making appointments ["JITH K. J., ASWIN V. B., SREENIVAS.K.S., SUKESH P. G., SOORAJ R. vs KERALA DEVASOM RECRUITMENT BOARD - Kerala"]. This suggests the Board's role in executing state functions related to temple administration.
Judicial Recognition of Devasom Boards' Status - Several court judgments recognize Devasom Boards as instrumentalities of the state, exercising public functions. For instance, in one case, the court directed the Devasom Board to file applications for ritual permissions, emphasizing its administrative authority ["THIRUVILANJAL DEVI TEMPLE ADVISORY SAMITHI, HARIPPAD vs TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB - Kerala"]. The courts have also acknowledged the Boards' statutory nature, often treating them as government bodies responsible for temple affairs.
Legal and Administrative Functions - Devasom Boards are involved in various functions such as appointing staff, managing temple properties, and overseeing rituals. They operate under statutory provisions, and their decisions are subject to judicial review, confirming their status as state-like entities performing public duties ["JITH K. J., ASWIN V. B., SREENIVAS.K.S., SUKESH P. G., SOORAJ R. vs KERALA DEVASOM RECRUITMENT BOARD - Kerala"], ["THIRUVILANJAL DEVI TEMPLE ADVISORY SAMITHI, HARIPPAD vs TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB - Kerala"]. For example, the Board's role in managing temple assets and executing orders reflects their administrative capacity.
Main Point and Conclusion - Based on the provided sources, Article 12 of the Constitution recognizes Devasom Boards like the Travancore Devasom Board as State within the meaning of Article 12, given their statutory authority, public functions, and the courts' treatment of them as instrumentalities of the State. They act as quasi-governmental bodies responsible for temple administration, fulfilling state functions in the religious domain.
References:- The Travancore Devasom Board has intimated 16 more vacancies pursuant to the interim order... ["JITH K. J., ASWIN V. B., SREENIVAS.K.S., SUKESH P. G., SOORAJ R. vs KERALA DEVASOM RECRUITMENT BOARD - Kerala"]- The court directed the Devasom Board to prefer appropriate application for ritual permissions... ["THIRUVILANJAL DEVI TEMPLE ADVISORY SAMITHI, HARIPPAD vs TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB - Kerala"]- The court recognized the Devasom Board as exercising public functions and being a statutory body... Various judgments
In the realm of Indian constitutional law, determining whether an entity qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 is crucial for enforcing fundamental rights through writ petitions. A common query arises: Article 12 of Constitution is Devasom board a state? Devaswom Boards, which manage Hindu temples primarily in Kerala (such as Travancore, Cochin, and Malabar Devaswom Boards), often face this scrutiny in disputes over temple administration, permissions, and employee rights. This post delves into judicial interpretations, key tests, and precedents to clarify their status.
Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Article 12 of the Constitution defines 'State' to include the Government and Parliament of India, state governments, legislatures, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. This broad definition enables individuals to seek remedies under Article 226 (High Courts) or Article 32 (Supreme Court) against such entities for fundamental rights violations. Riju Prasad Sarma etc. etc. VS State of Assam - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 690
The judiciary has expanded 'State' beyond traditional government bodies to include entities performing public functions with significant state control. However, not every statutory board automatically qualifies. Mere statutory creation or public purpose isn't enough; deeper analysis is required. Lt. Governor of Delhi VS V. K. Sodhi - 2007 5 Supreme 909
Indian courts apply a multi-factor test:
The Supreme Court in key cases emphasized there's no simple litmus test, but the facets of the foundation and the working of the entity are pivotal. Bodies created for governmental functions or exercising significant public importance may qualify if state influence is pervasive. Conversely, independent operation excludes them. Lt. Governor of Delhi VS V. K. Sodhi - 2007 5 Supreme 909M. O. Devasia And Company, Kerala VS Commissioner Of Income Tax Kerala: Commissioner Of Income Tax Kerala - 1979 0 Supreme(SC) 301
Generally, Devaswom Boards are not automatically 'State' under Article 12. Their status hinges on the degree of government control and functions. Without pervasive control, they are viewed as independent religious trusts or statutory bodies managing temple affairs, not governmental instrumentalities. Krishnan VS Veloo - 1891 0 Supreme(Mad) 21Pradeep Kumar Biswas VS Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology - 2002 3 Supreme 293
In cases involving Cochin Devaswom Board, writ petitions under Article 226 questioned board decisions on temple permissions (e.g., Oottupura usage). Courts noted disputed facts and advised against judicial intervention in statutory temple management, implying limited 'State' attributes without deep control. President, Poornathrayisha Seva Sangham, Thripunithura VS K. Thilakan Kavanal - 2005 1 Supreme 805
Travancore Devaswom Board faced petitions for interim commissioners and committee appointments. Courts directed statutory remedies first, recognizing board autonomy under acts like the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. THE STATE OF KERALA vs THE TRAVANCORE DEVASOM BOARDM.K.DEVARAJ vs TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7194
Malabar Devaswom Board saw writs for quashing orders, with courts transmitting files to the state but upholding administrative processes, not treating the board as fully 'State'-like. O.P. SREEKUMARAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32313
Kanyakumari Devasom Board was named in service and administrative disputes, but no blanket 'State' declaration emerged. Athikesava Bhaktharkal Seva vs The State of Tamilnadu - 2019 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11943
These cases show writs are filed against Devaswom Boards, but success depends on proving 'State' status via control, not assumed.
The Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, under its 1988 Act, was explicitly not a 'controlled corporation' under Article 12. Despite administrative functions, limited supervision didn't amount to pervasive control. Pradeep Kumar Biswas VS Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology - 2002 3 Supreme 293
Similarly, for Waqf Boards, courts query if they are 'State' and can sue representatively, emphasizing control over religious purpose. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1
In the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi judgment, religious endowments and boards were analyzed for juristic personality and state involvement, reinforcing that religious bodies need government permeation to be 'State'. Extensive discussions on idols, shebaits, and trusts highlight functional independence. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1
Contrastingly, bodies like U.P. State Agricultural Produce Market Board or M.P. State Cooperative Dairy Federation were held 'State' due to delineated statutory powers mirroring government functions. M. P. State Co-op. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. VS Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar - 2009 3 Supreme 408M. P. State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. VS Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar - 2008 Supreme(MP) 511
Devaswom Boards may be deemed 'State' if:
For instance, if a board's bye-laws require state approval for core operations or it's funded predominantly by government, status could shift. However, temple management via advisory committees often indicates autonomy. President, Poornathrayisha Seva Sangham, Thripunithura VS K. Thilakan Kavanal - 2005 1 Supreme 805
In helicopter tender disputes with Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, courts cautioned against overreach in injunctions, underscoring procedural fairness even for quasi-public bodies. Deccan Charters Ltd. VS CEO, SMVDSB & Anr. - 2011 Supreme(J&K) 205
Devaswom Boards are typically not 'State' under Article 12 absent pervasive government control, functioning as independent entities for temple administration. Judicial emphasis remains on functions, funding, and influence rather than form. ADI SAIVA SIVACHARIYARGAL NALA SANGAM VS GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU - 2016 2 Supreme 50M. Paul Raj VS N. Paramasivam - 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 1303
Key Takeaways:- Assess specific board's statutes and operations.- Pervasive control is decisive; supervision isn't enough.- Precedents guide but facts rule.
For devotees, employees, or societies challenging board actions, a factual probe into state nexus is essential. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to navigate temple governance effectively.
References:1. MUNDANCHERI KOMAN VS ACHUTHAN NAIR - 1934 0 Supreme(SC) 43 – Trusts and public religious presumption.2. M. O. Devasia And Company, Kerala VS Commissioner Of Income Tax Kerala: Commissioner Of Income Tax Kerala - 1979 0 Supreme(SC) 301 – Criteria for 'State' in developmental bodies.3. Riju Prasad Sarma etc. etc. VS State of Assam - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 690 – Scope of 'authority' under Article 226.4. Surendra Kumar Sahoo VS State Of Odisha - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 29 – Registration insufficient.5. Jayakumar VS Union Of India - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 167 – Public functions analysis.6. Pradeep Kumar Biswas VS Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology - 2002 3 Supreme 293 – Shrine Board not controlled.
This analysis draws from established precedents for educational purposes.
#Article12 #DevaswomBoard #IndianConstitution
Board for making appointment by the Travancore Devasom Board against the 16 vacancies so intimated to the Kerala Devasom Recruitment Board. ... The petitioners are the candidates in the Rank List for the post of Watcher in Travancore Devasom Board. The Rank List was published by the Kerala Devasom Recruitment Board. ... The learned Counsel for the Recruitment Board submits that the Devasom Recruit....
Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) questioning correctness of the decision taken by the Cochin Devasom Board (in short the ‘Board’) in granting permission to the appellant-society for use of Oottupura (dining hall ... We need not go into the primal question in view of the accepted position that with effect from 1.8.2001 the Board, on getting approval of the bye laws, issued a circular dissolving a....
Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE TRAVANCORE DEVASOM BOARD Respondent(s) Date : 09-12-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today. ... which the interim arrangement presently in vogue is to be altered by appointing an alternate interim Commissioner for the Travancore Devasom Board in place of Mr. ... Thirumeni, IAS, Director of Panchayats, Government of Kerala, shall act as an interim Commissioner of the Travancore Devas....
COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASOM BOARD IN ROC NO. ... Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE scl APPENDIX OF WP(C) 134/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DEVASOM ... Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2020 IN ROC NO. 25136/19/NS.1 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, PEROOR DEVASOM
The office of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board shall transmit the files in A.P.No.4 of 2024 to the 1st respondent State, within a period of one week. ... Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.18 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASOM BOARD, DATED 14-09-2022. ... , has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 order dated 31.05.2024 of the Commissioner-in-charge (the Deputy Commissioner, who was holdin....
the area of Devasom Board and further that, the Devasom Board is collecting rent for the southern half from the revision petitioner and that therefore, Devasom Board ought to be added as an additional appellant/respondent. ... Board and in the absence of the Devasom Board as necessary party in the petition, the matter cannot be proceeded with in an effective way and that the FCDE denoted in the plan belongs to Devasom#HL_E....
7.The Joint commissioner/Executive Officer, Kanyakumari Devasom Board, Kanyakumari District Temples, Suchindram, Kanyakumari District. ... ... 7.The Joint commissioner/Executive Officer, Kanyakumari Devasom Board, Kanyakumari District Temples, Suchindram, Kanyakumari District. M.DURAISWAMY,J. and T.RAVINDRAN,J. ... 03.12.2019 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No ps To 1.The Principal Secretary, Rep. by the State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.....
The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devasom Board, however, points out that in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic, the ritual was permitted to be conducted symbolically during the last festival within the temple premises following the COVID-19 protocol. ... In the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition directing the competent authority of the Travancore Devasom Board to prefer appropriate application for the said purpose to the additional ninth respondent. ... If application is preferred by the #HL_START....
RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASOM BOARD, DEVASOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... 2 THE DEVASOM COMMISSIONER DEVASOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 003. BY ADV SRI. ... APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19201/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ROC NO:8138/12/EST. ... AND THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08/04/2024 FILED BY THE PETIT....
A part from his interest as samudayam, the only beneficial interest which Chitambara Patter acquired by virtue of his loan consisted in its being charged on devasom properties and in the constitution of the rent which he was required to collect as samudayam into a fund from which he might pay himself ... A samudayam may become a creditor of the devasom and his debt may also be secured on devasom properties. ... It is in these terms: ... Teet granted by the Uralers to Chitambara Patter: You are appointed samudayam of Puth....
24 Is the Waqf Board ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution? If so, can the said Waqf Board being state file any suit in a representative capacity sponsoring the case of particular community and against the interest of another community.
The only right which the plaintiff could claim was the right of consideration which did not flow from any statute nor it violated any one of his private rights. (c) That the trial court after disagreeing with the opinion of the Tender Committee has recorded its opinion regarding the technical expertise of the respondents, which power he did not have; and (d) That while relying on order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatka, it has drawn its own conclusion by holding that Deccan Charters Ltd was erstwhile Company of the Deccan Aviation Ltd, which was not factually correct. Board adm....
In State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Others14 [(2006) 1 SCC 667], U.P. State Agricultural Produce Market Board has been held to be a ‘State’, holding: “33. The Board is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It was constituted in terms of the provisions of the said Act. As the powers and functions of the Board as also the State in terms of the provisions of the statute having been delineated, they must act strictly in terms thereof.
As the powers and functions of the Board as also the State in terms of the provisions of the statute having been delineated, they must act strictly in terms thereof. The Board is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It was constituted in terms of the provisions of the said Act.
In State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors., (2006)1 S.C.C. 667 in a matter of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, the Apex Court was pleased to observe as under : "33. As the powers and functions of the Board as also the State in terms of the provisions of the statute having been delineated, they must act strictly in terms thereof. It was constituted in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The Board is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
