Malabar Devaswom Board Can't Use Supervisory Powers To Indirectly Take Over Temple Administration: Kerala High Court

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, issued the order in a writ challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer by the Malabar Devaswom Board in a temple managed under a hereditary trusteeship scheme.

The petitioner is the Manager of the Naduvilmadom group of temples, which comes under the HR & CE Act. The petitioner contended that the Mooppil Swamiyar is the hereditary trustee and the manager appointed by him is empowered to administer the group of temples.

The petitioner submitted that the Assistant commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, has issued notice pointing out that an inspection was conducted by the Divisional Inspector, Palakkad in which, certain defect in the administration of the temple was noted. The Assistant Commissioner has also appointed an Executive Officer without hearing the hereditary trustee and the petitioner. In the previous round of litigation, the Court has noted that the role of the Executive Officer is only to assist the Manager of the temple appointed by the trustee and not to replace him.

Despite the previous Court orders, the Commissioner has issued an order in which a full-time Executive Officer was appointed in the temple and directed the petitioner, who is the Manager appointed by the trustee to hand over the charge to the Executive Officer. This order has led the petitioner to approach the Court seeking to quash the above orders.

The Court thus examined whether the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board can, under Section 20 of the HR & CE Act, appoint a full-time Executive Officer with powers that effectively supersede the authority of a hereditary trustee and his appointed manager.

The Court examined the statutory scheme under the HR & CE Act, particularly Sections 8B, 20, and 45. The Court noted that Section 20 grants the Commissioner general superintendence and control over religious endowments; Section 8B allows direct takeover of management on unconditional request by the trustee and Section 45 provides a structured mechanism to remove or suspend trustees for misconduct, subject to procedural safeguards.

The Devaswom Board justified its action citing maladministration, financial irregularities, and audit deficiencies. It further submitted that the orders are passed under Section 20 of the HR&CE Act for the protection of the interest of the deity and the devotees.

The Court noted that instead of proceeding under Section 45 which deals with removal of trustee/manager or Section 8B which deals with formal takeover, Devaswom Board relied solely on Section 20 to appoint a full-time Executive Officer.

The Section 20 of the Act states that the administration of all religious endowments shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner; and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any orders which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such endowments are properly administered and that their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exit.

The Court placed reliance on A.C. Bhanunni v Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department [2011 SCC OnLine Ker 2907], where it was observed that the hereditary trustee is not under the absolute control or is an employee of the Board.

The Court noted that the powers vested under Section 20 of the HR& CE Act are to pass such orders for the supervision of the affairs of the temple. The Court thus emphasized that the terms “superintendance” and “control” imply oversight and not the substitution of authority.

“The words “superintendence” and “control” presuppose two authorities, i.e., one authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties, and another authority to supervise and control the affairs of the former. In the instant case, the authority invested with the powers of superintendence and control has appointed an Executive Officer to discharge the duties of the original authority. The word “superintendence and control” are not defined in the HR & CE Act. Therefore, those words should be interpreted in its general and literal meaning.” Court noted.

The Court further noted that the temple was governed by a 1936 scheme granting administrative authority to a hereditary trustee and his appointed manager. In earlier litigation, the High Court had expressly limited the role of the Board appointed personnel to assisting the manager and not replacing him.

The Court thus noted that by directing that the trustee's manager act under the Executive Officer's instructions, the impugned order effectively usurped the trustee's authority, violating both the scheme and binding judicial directions.

“If there is maladministration, misfeasance or mismanagement by the Manager of the temple, who is acting for and on behalf of the Trustee appointed as per Ext.P1 scheme, 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 of the HR & CE Act; instead, the respondent Board has issued Ext.P6 order by an indirect method to perform the functions or discharge the duties of the original authority, which in our considered view, is impermissible.” Court noted.

The Court thus set aside the order appointing the full-time Executive Officer and consequential direction to hand over charge and related communications.

Case Title: Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v Malabar Devswom Board and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 44515/ 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 244

Counsel for Petitioner: K. Mohanakannan, Adarsh Mohan K

Counsel for Respondents: R. Ranjanie (SC - Malabar Devaswom Board), Nisha Geirge, H. Praveen, Sidharth R. Wariyar, Keerthi M