Enhancement Of Annuities For Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple A Matter For Legislation: Kerala High Court Dismisses Writ

The Kerala High Court recently held that enhancement of annuities paid to the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and prescription of interest for the delayed payment is a matter to be decided by the legislature, since it can be effectuated only by appropriate amendment to Section 6 of the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971.

The development comes in a plea seeking enhancement of annuities by 25% every four years. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed,

"...any such increase shall be taking into account the prevailing state of affairs, including the rate of inflation and change that has been brought about in the nature and complexity in the administration of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple over a period of time. All the same, it is a matter for legislation. This Court is not expected to direct the State to carry out a legislation in a particular manner". 

While observing that it was the obligation of the Government to revise the annuity considering the rate of inflation and other aspects, and also that Devaswoms have a Constitutional right to get annuity as per Article 290A of the Constitution, the Court observed that the instant petition did indeed serve a larger public interest in this light.

"When the statutory and Constitutional provisions command the Government to pay the annuity, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any oblique or extraneous motive in filing this Writ Petition. It certainly serves the larger public interest", it was observed. 

The instant writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a social activist, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the State of Kerala to pay the pending dues of annuity since 2017 for the properties of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Thiruvananthapuram, which were vested with the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 or as per similar enactments.

The petitioner had initially filed the case arraying State of Kerala represented by the Secretary Parliamentary Affairs (Devasom Department), Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Chief Secretary (Secretariat), and Travancore Devasom Board as the respondents 1-4 respectively. By a subsequent Interlocutory Application filed by the Petitioner, respondents 1, 2, and 4 were deleted at the petitioner's own risk. The Executive Officer of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple was also suo motu impleaded as the additional 5th respondent.

Findings of the Division Bench:

On Maintainability:

It was contended by Senior Government Pleader S. Rajmohan, Standing Counsel of the Travancore Devasom Board G. Biju, and Advocates R. Suraj Kumar, S. Prem Anand, Anjana R.S., and Reshma K. Raju, that firstly, the petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ, and secondly, that the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, was not in the array of parties and hence, the writ was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 

The Court found that Section 2(d) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 defines 'person interested', in the case of temple, to include a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat. The Court also took note of the rulings in A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2007), Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair (2013), and Nandakumar v. District Collector & Ors (2018), which categorically laid down that the Courts are vested with the duty to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of religious and charitable institutions.

Thus, the Court observed in this light that the challenge on maintainability on the ground of locus standi of the petitioner would not sustain since, 

"The doctrine of parens patriae will apply in this Court exercising jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of religious and charitable institutions, which can even be exercised suo motu".

As regards the non joinder of the necessary party, the Court found that the first relief sought for in the writ petition related to non-payment of annuity to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, since 2017, payable by the Revenue Department of the State. In light of Rule 148 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, which requires all persons directly affected to be made parties to the petition, the Court found considerable force in the said submission of the counsels, insofar as it related to the first relief sought for in the petition. 

Payment of Annuities

The counsels for the respondents contended that the matter relating to payment of annuity was governed by the provisions under the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971, under which an amount of Rs.58,500/- had been sanctioned on annual basis. It was submitted that it was on account of COVID-19 Pandemic that annuity for the year 2019-20, though sanctioned, could not be paid, and that the said amount was surrendered on 10.05.2020. The annuity payable till 2018-19 and that for the year 2020-21 has already been sanctioned and paid, the counsels further submitted. It was also added that a proposal to enhance the annuity to the temple was also under the active consideration of the Government, and that process has been initiated for the introduction of a new Bill in this regard after the lapse of the earlier Bill to amend the Act of 1971. Thus, it was submitted by the respondents that the temple was receiving Rs.31,998.69, annually, since the year 1970-71, under the provisions of the Thiruppuvaram Payment (Abolition) Act, 1969, and Rs.20,00,000/- annually towards the contribution by the State Government, under Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. 

The Court found in this light that considering the submission made by the Senior Government Pleader that the annuity payable to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple up to 2020-21, at the existing rate, has already been paid, the petitioner had no subsisting grievance regarding payment of annuity, in terms of the provisions under Section 6(1) and (2) of the Act of 1971, at the existing rate of Rs.58,500/-.

Enhancement of Annuities

The petitioner, represented by Advocates Suvidutt M.S., and B. Anu, submitted that the annuity payable to the temple was being paid under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and as per Section 67A, the State Government was obliged to effect periodical increase in the same, which has so far not been effectuated. Thus, the petitioner sought for enhancement of annuities on the ground that the State Government had failed in its statutory obligation to do so. On the other hand, the respondents contended that it was Sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Act of 1971 that governed payment of annuity to the temple, and not the Act of 1963. 

The Court found that in order to determine the same, it would be necessary to consider whether the said question regarding enhancement relates to the need of an executive order or legislation. 

The Court found that Chapter III of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, which deals with Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, stipulates in Section 23 that until 'other arrangements'  are made, the existing arrangements regarding the management of Sree Pandaravaga properties and the collection of revenues therefrom shall continue as heretofore. As per Section 22 of the Act of 1971, the provisions of the statute are regarded as 'other arrangements', mentioned in the Act of 1950. 

 The Court found that the annuities were being paid in terms of the Act of 1971, and that no evidence had been adduced by the petitioner to prove that it was paid as per the Act of 1963. At this juncture, the Court reasoned that if the contention of the petitioner that the Government is obliged to pay annuity as per the provisions of the Act of 1963 is sustained, then the amount of annuity would require periodical revision as provided in Section 67A of the said statute, and an executive order would be sufficient to effectuate such enhancement. 

The Court also found that the Act of 1971 being a special statute, and also the later one, it prevails over the Act of 1963. 

"Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the annuity to be paid to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple is as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and not under the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971", the Court ruled.

Thus, the Court found that if the annuity paid under Section 6 of the Act of 1971 had to be revised, it could only be done if Section 6 of the statute was appropriately amended. 

It was in this light that the Court determined the same to be a matter of legislation, and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. 

Case Title: Shilpa Nair v. State of Kerala (Deleted)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 553 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment