Kerala High Court Says Dignitaries' Visits, Public Addresses At Thekkinkadu Maidan Not Prohibited

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar reiterated that the Cochin Devaswom Board must exercise its discretion prudently while permitting events at the Maidan, keeping in mind the interests of the deity and devotees.

The petitioner had earlier approached the Court seeking a declaration that prior permission from the High Court was not necessary for letting out the Kshethra Maidan, except for beautification and construction activities

In July, 2026, the Court had issued directions restricting the use of Thekkinkadu Maidan in Thrissur for political activities and gatherings.

In the review petition, the petitioner contended that the restrictions imposed by the judgment were erroneous and that the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, was not applicable to Thekkinkadu Maidan.

It was argued that the Maidan could not be treated as a place of public religious worship merely because of its association with the temple. The petitioner also highlighted the historical significance of locations such as Students' Corner, Nehru Mandapam, Labour Corner and Vivekananda Square, where several eminent personalities, including Prime Ministers, had addressed public gatherings during their visits to Thrissur.

The petitioner further contended that the judgments relied upon by the Court in imposing restrictions concerned activities within temple premises and were therefore distinguishable from the present case, where the venue was the Maidan, which also hosts the historic Thrissur Pooram.

Another grievance concerned the restrictions relating to hoardings and advertisement boards. The petitioner also questioned the observations in the earlier judgment, which were alleged to have restricted programmes organised by various State Government departments.

It was argued that permission for Devaswom Department-related events without payment of licence fees or rent was arbitrary, particularly when the Maidan was also used for public events such as Independence Day celebrations and School Youth Festivals.

Before considering the grounds raised, the Court reiterated the settled legal position governing review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715], Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224], the Court emphasised that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be invoked merely because a party believes that a different view ought to have been taken.

The Court observed that a review is maintainable only in circumstances such as the discovery of new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason recognised by law.

The Court examined Section 3 of the religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. Section 3 prohibits religious institutions from using premises belonging to or under their control for promoting or propagating political activities. The definition of a religious institution under Section 2(f) includes any place or premises used as a place of public religious worship, irrespective of the name or designation by which it is known.

The Court also referred to the statutory definition of political activity under Section 2(d), which includes activities promoting the objectives of a political party and organising meetings, demonstrations and processions.

The Court held that it was unable to accept the petitioner's contention that the provisions of the 1988 Act were inapplicable to Thekkinkadu Maidan.

“In view of the strict prohibition of political activity in Section 3 of the Act and on going through the definitions of the terms 'political activity' and 'religious institution', we are unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the Thekkinkadu Maidan.” Court noted.

The Court then went on to address the argument concerning the historical significance of the Maidan. The Court clarified that its earlier judgment had neither prohibited nor intended to restrict visits by eminent dignitaries or the delivery of public addresses by them at the venue.

“.. It is clarified that this Court has neither interdicted nor intended to restrict visits by such dignitaries or the delivery of public addresses by them at the Maidan. The observations and directions issued in the judgment under review cannot, therefore, be construed as imposing any such prohibition or restriction.” the Court said.

It further observed that the earlier judgment had only laid down a general guideline that places of religious worship should be maintained in a serene and tranquil atmosphere, free from political activities, protests and demonstrations, in accordance with the provisions of the 1988 Act.

The Court added that the Cochin Devaswom Board was required to exercise its discretion and take appropriate decisions in such matters.

“We had only issued a general guideline that the places of religious worship shall be kept in a serene and tranquil manner, free from any political activities, protests and demonstrations, in tune with the provisions of the Act of 1988. It is for the Board to exercise its discretion and take a decision in such matters.” Court added.

The Court referred to an earlier judgment of a Coordinate Bench, which had relied on Satheesh v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others '2022 1 KLT 940], to address the issue of hoardings and advertisement boards.

The earlier judgment had directed that no hoardings, advertisement boards or temporary structures should be erected on the right of way or pedestrian facilities of public roads surrounding temple premises in connection with annual festivals or religious ceremonies.

In this regard, the Court directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to prepare a detailed protocol governing the installation of hoardings and advertisement boards, keeping in view the interests of the deity and devotees, and to ensure strict compliance with the same.

The Court also rejected the petitioner's contention that its earlier judgment had interdicted programmes organised by other departments of the State Government.

The Court stated that it had not prohibited programmes or events organised by other government departments. It further added that it had not prohibited events such as Independence Day celebrations and School Youth Festivals.

“We have not interdicted the programmes or events organised by the other Departments; likewise, we have not interdicted the conduct of events like Independence Day celebrations, School Youth Festivals, etc.” Court observed.

The Court noted that it had only issued a general guideline to the Cochin Devaswom Board to consider the financial aspects while granting permission to other departments to conduct events at Thekkinkadu Maidan.

It observed that the Board was free to exercise its discretion prudently in such matters, while protecting the interests of the deity and devotees.

With these clarifications and directions, the Kerala High Court disposed of the review petition.

Counsel for Review petitioner: K.P. Sudheer (SC - Cochin Devaswom Board)

Counsel for Respondents: Premchand M ( SC - Thrissur Corporation), K.R. Sunil (Spl. GP)