Criticising the Board, the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed:

“We are shocked and dismayed to note that the Board has incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs.28,44,313/- from the Devaswom funds within a short period for the repairs of the residential quarter, purchase of vehicle and purchase of household articles for an Officer, who was appointed on a deputation basis for a limited period, that too, violating the Rules and Regulations…. We strongly disapprove and deprecate the actions of the Board and its top officials for incurring expenditure for luxuries and comforts of the officers, violating the norms, Rules and Regulations. The Board shall take utmost care and restraint, while expending the funds of the Devaswom, in future.”

The Court was considering pleas raising the allegation that the Devaswom Commissioner misappropriated Devaswom funds. The petitioners alleged that the Devaswom Board and the Commissioner spent huge amounts to renovate the 100-year-old quarter allotted to the latter. Additional expenses were also incurred for buying household items and an amount of Rs. 17 lakhs was spent on a new car, it is alleged.

The petitioners argued that there was no justification for the Board or its officers to spend such a huge amount on luxuries when it is finding it difficult to manage the 409 temples under it. It was pointed out that public money collected by devotees must be spent more diligently, especially since most of the temples are in a dilapidated condition and in need of serious repair.

The Board's stand was that the Commissioner had incurred the expenses after getting necessary orders and there was no illegality or irregularity on the actions of the Board or the Commissioner.

The amicus curie suggested that the expenditure incurred must be subjected to audit by the Audit department.

In the affidavit submitted by the Audit department, it was stated that S.R. Udayakumar was appointed as Devaswom Commissioner on a deputation basis and his tenure was extended by the Board thereafter. Further, it was stated that though there is provision for residence, there is no provision for furnishing the same.

Reference was made to a 2019 government order, whereby it is stated that a new vehicle can be purchased only if the old one completed 3 lakh km or 10 years of service. However, in the present case, though it is stated that the vehicle was replaced due to braking issues, it had only covered around 86,000 km and registered around 4 years back only. Moreover, considerable amount was spent on the car's accessories also.

The Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the car and household articles were purchased in violation of norms and the 2019 GO. It then perused Section 73A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 that lays down the Board's duties, including ensuring proper facilities in the temples.

It also took note of the fact that the Audit department noted irregularities in the transactions in DBAR No. 5/2025. Therefore, it directed the Board to finalise the audit objections in the afore petition within 3 months.

Further, the Board's Secretary was directed to file an affidavit of compliance after finalizing the audit objections.

Case No: WP(C) No.39814/2025 & DBP No.13/2026

Case Title: K.B. Sumod v. State of Kerala and Ors. & Narayanankutty K. and Ors. v. The Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 461

Counsel for the petitioners: Anupama Subramanian, Resmi A.

Counsel for the respondents: K.R. Sunil – Special Government Pleader, K.P. Sudheer – Standing Counsel

Amicus Curiae: P. Ramachandran

Click to Read/Download Judgment