Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Upholds 'Traditional Boundary' Rule for Chottanikkara Temple Advisory Committee Membership

Ernakulam, Kerala - The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment, has upheld the validity of a Cochin Devaswom Board bye-law that restricts membership in the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Chottanikkara Devi Temple to devotees "born and brought up and residing within the traditional boundaries of the temple." The decision came from a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan , who dismissed a writ petition filed by Divya Somanad .

The petitioner had challenged her exclusion from the draft list for the TAC, arguing the rule was arbitrary and sought an amendment to the bye-laws.

Case Background: A Devotee's Challenge

Ms. Divya Somanad , a devotee residing in Kadavanthra , Ernakulam District, approximately 15 kilometers from the Chottanikkara Devi Temple, had applied for membership in the temple's TAC. Her application (Ext.P1) was rejected, and her name was not included in the draft list of members (Ext.P2) published on May 15, 2025. The rejection was based on a modified bye-law (Ext.P4), framed under Section 76A(3) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, which stipulated that TAC members must be devotees born, raised, and residing within the "traditional boundaries" of the Chottanikkara temple.

Ms. Somanad filed a writ petition (WP(C) NO. 19044 OF 2025) seeking to quash the draft list and to compel the Cochin Devaswom Board to amend Clause (3) of the bye-law. She argued that the geographical restriction was unfair and also sought modifications to ensure explicit representation for women and members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) communities in TACs.

Arguments at the Bar

Petitioner's Counsel (Adv. B.S.Suresh (Chirakkara)) contended that: * Ms. Somanad , despite residing outside the traditional boundaries, was legally entitled to TAC membership. * The Cochin Devaswom Board 's stance was arbitrary and illegal. * Clause (3) of the modified bye-law required amendment to include devotees living outside the traditional limits and to better ensure representation for women and SC/ST individuals.

Cochin Devaswom Board 's Counsel (Adv. K.P. Sudheer, SC, CDB) countered that: * The eligibility criterion concerning "traditional boundaries" for TAC membership had not been altered by previous High Court orders, including the order dated March 18, 2024, in DBP No.5 of 2021, which led to the current modified bye-laws. * The existing provisions in Clause (3) of the modified bye-law already mandated the inclusion of one woman and one SC/ST member, and thus required no further changes.

Court's Examination of Law and Bye-Laws

The High Court meticulously examined the statutory framework governing Devaswoms, particularly the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The judgment highlighted:

* Section 76A of the Act : This section empowers the Cochin Devaswom Board to constitute Temple Advisory Committees to ensure devotee participation and to frame rules for their composition, consistent with prevailing practices.

* Board's Fiduciary Duty : Referencing precedents like Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board (1975 KLT 55) and A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board ((2007) 7 SCC 482), the court reiterated that the Board acts as a trustee for temple properties and affairs and must protect them diligently.

* Court's Parens Patriae Jurisdiction : Citing Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair ((2013 (3) KLT 132)), the court affirmed its inherent jurisdiction as the guardian of the Deity to safeguard temple interests.

The Court then focused on the evolution and interpretation of Clause (3) of the TAC bye-laws, which deals with membership eligibility. It noted that the bye-laws were modified pursuant to its directions in DBP No.5 of 2021 ( Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2024:KER:53279]).

Interpretation of 'Traditional Boundary' Rule

Crucially, the Court found that the specific eligibility criterion related to the "traditional boundaries" of the temple remained unchanged despite the recent modifications. The judgment stated:

"A reading of clause (3) of the bye-law (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Act prior to the modification made by the order of this Court dated 18.03.2024 in DBP No.5 of 2021 and that after such modification, make it explicitly clear that the eligibility clause with reference to the traditional boundaries of the temple has not undergone any modification whatsoever and it remains as such." (Para 26)

The Court observed that the petitioner resided in Kadavanthra , "which is beyond the traditional boundaries of Chottanikkara Devi Temple," and is about 15 kms away. It held that the draft list published by the Devaswom Manager should only include names of devotees meeting the eligibility criteria prescribed in the rules. The petitioner had not pointed out any instances of ineligible persons being included in the draft list.

The Court clarified that the modifications to the bye-laws arising from DBP No.5 of 2021 were aimed at ensuring a "fair and transparent manner" for the formation of TACs, rather than altering fundamental eligibility like the traditional boundary rule.

Representation for Women and SC/ST Communities

Regarding the petitioner's plea for better representation, the Court found it unnecessary, stating:

"As per clause (3) of the bye-law (Rules), one woman and one member belonging to scheduled caster/scheduled tribe shall mandatorily be included in the Temple Advisory Committee. Therefore, we find absolutely no merits in the contention of the petitioner that clause (3) of the bye-law (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 76A of the Act requires modification." (Para 26)

Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed

Concluding that the petitioner's contentions lacked merit, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court found that Ms. Somanad was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought, thereby upholding the Cochin Devaswom Board 's bye-law concerning TAC membership at Chottanikkara Devi Temple.

This ruling affirms the Devaswom Board 's authority to define membership criteria for Temple Advisory Committees based on traditional geographical connections to the temple, as long as such rules are consistent with the governing Act and ensure necessary representation.