Kerala High Court Slaps Down Devaswom Board's Bid to Sideline Temple Trustee's Manager

In a significant ruling on temple governance, the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam has quashed orders from the Malabar Devaswom Board attempting to install a full-time Executive Officer at the Sree Annapoorneswari Temple in Puthucode, Palakkad. The Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K.V. Jayakumar held that the Board's supervisory powers under Section 20 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act cannot be twisted to indirectly take over administration from a hereditary trustee's appointed manager. The decision, delivered on March 23, 2026, in WP(C) No. 44515 of 2025, reinforces the autonomy of hereditary trustees while mandating stricter accountability.

This verdict echoes a growing judicial caution against overreach in temple affairs, as highlighted in contemporary reports like Malabar Devaswom Board Can't Use Supervisory Powers To Indirectly Take Over Temple Administration: Kerala High Court .

A Temple Caught in Administrative Crossfire

The Sree Annapoorneswari Temple forms part of the Naduvilmadom group of 18 temples under a 1936 scheme (Ext.P1), governed by the HR&CE Act. Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri, the petitioner and manager appointed by the hereditary trustee (Mooppil Swamiyar of Naduvilmadom Mutt), has overseen the temple for years. Tensions escalated after inspections revealed lapses: delayed audits from 2006-2023, missing inventory registers for gold and silver (with reported losses of 824.55g gold and 1276.85g silver), and improper hundial collections.

The Malabar Devaswom Board—represented by its Secretary, Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner (Palakkad)—responded aggressively. In 2022, they appointed R. Radmesh (4th respondent) as Executive Officer/Manager to "assist" (Exts.P2-P3), a move upheld but clarified in an earlier judgment (Ext.P4, WP(C) No.19403/2022) as not replacing the trustee's manager. Complaints persisted, fueled by devotee N. Pramod (5th respondent), leading to audits confirming irregularities and culminating in the contested Ext.P6 (Oct 15, 2025), making Radmesh full-time Executive Officer with directive authority over the trustee's manager, followed by handover orders (Exts.P8-P9).

The petitioner challenged these as violations of the scheme, prior rulings, and the Act, seeking certiorari to quash them.

Petitioner's Stand: Autonomy Over Interference

Namboothiri argued Ext.P6 flouted Ext.P4's mandate that Board appointees merely assist , not supplant, the trustee's manager. Citing Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom v. Malabar Devaswom Board (2010(4) KLT 568), he stressed the scheme vests appointment powers solely with the trustee (Clause 3), with the Board limited to supervision. Section 20 allows only "general superintendence," not displacement. No charges were framed under Section 45 for trustee removal, and the temple wasn't "taken over" per Section 8B(1). He refuted mismanagement claims, pointing to approved budgets (Ext.P11) and audit replies (Ext.P10), alleging political motives.

The trustee (impleaded 6th respondent) backed him via affidavit.

Board's Counter: Mismanagement Demands Action

The Board defended Ext.P6 under Section 20 for "proper administration," citing audit reports (Ext.R2(1)) exposing decades of non-compliance: no budgets/accounts per Clauses 7/10, lost valuables, irregular COVID disbursals, and unsealed receipts. Prior orders (Exts.R5(a)-(f)) and Pramod's litigations underscored persistent issues post-Ext.P4. Radmesh's role evolved due to the manager's "adamant" refusal to reform. They questioned the petitioner's locus standi (no Board approval for his appointment, per Clause 3) and suggested revision under Section 99. Pramod amplified with photos and complaints of construction irregularities.

Decoding the Judicial Lens: Supervision vs. Subordination

The Court dismissed maintainability objections—alternative remedies don't bar writs, and the trustee was impleaded. Pivoting to merits, it dissected Section 20's scope: "general superintendence and control" means oversight ( care and direction ), not usurping duties ( A.C. Bhanunni v. HR&CE Dept. , 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 2907). Ext.P6's directive— "Manager appointed by Trustee shall conduct administration per Executive Officer's guidelines" —directly contravened Ext.P4 and Parakkad (Board can't appoint to "totally take over" absent Section 64 notification).

For malfeasance, Section 45 mandates charges, hearings, and findings—untaken here. Section 8B requires trustee request. Thus, Ext.P6 was an "indirect method" impermissibly inverting roles.

Key Observations from the Bench

"The directions in Ext.P6 order that the Manager appointed by the Trustee shall act in accordance with the guidelines issued by the full-time Executive Officer would certainly curtail, restrict, limit and usurp the powers of the Manager appointed by the Trustee."

"The powers vested in the Board under Section 20... are subject to the other provisions of the Act, and consist of general superintendence and control ... to ensure proper administration."

"If there is maladministration... it is open for the Board to act in accordance with Section 45 of the Act. But the Board has not opted to invoke Section 45 ... issued Ext.P6 order by an indirect method."

Victory with Strings: Quashed, But Reforms Ordered

The writ succeeded: Exts.P6, P8, P9 quashed. Yet, no blanket exoneration—the Court directed the petitioner to maintain registers/accounts per statute/bye-laws, comply with Chapter VII (budgets/audits), ensuring "transparency and clarity." This balances trustee autonomy with devotee safeguards, signaling Boards must follow due process for interventions, potentially curbing similar overreaches in Kerala's temple ecosystem.