Sympathizing With A Political Party Not A Disqualification For Appointment As Non-Hereditary Trustee In A Temple: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court observed that mere sympathizing with a political party cannot be a disqualification for appointment as non-hereditary of a temple.There is clear distinction between sympathizing with a political party and indulging in active participation in the activities of the party, the bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar observed while it dismissed a petition filed by a hereditary trustee of the Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Temple challenging the notification issued by the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board that invited applications to the post of non-hereditary trustees at the temple. The petitioner, a hereditary trustee of Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Temple, had approached the Court challenging the notification issued by the Commissioner for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees. He also sought a declaration that, since no finding has been entered on the need and necessity of appointing non-hereditary trustees for managing the properties of the Devaswom, the present Board of Trustees (which consists of two hereditary trustees) is entitled to manage the affairs of the temple.Advocate U. Balagangadharan appearing for the petitioner contended that for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees, the Commissioner has to comply with the requirements of Section 39(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (HR&CE Act). Therefore, he argued that the procedure adopted in issuing the impugned notification is per se arbitrary and illegal.The petitioner also contended that the Commissioner is acting on the pressure brought to bear upon it from his political masters, who want to induct their own persons in the Trustee Board to interfere in the affairs of the temple and also the school and to politicize the temple administration. It was further contended that the age of the hereditary trustee is not a disqualification and it cannot constitute a valid reason for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees while adding that the hereditary trustees were capable of discharging their functions.Opposing the plea, Advocate R. Lakshmi Narayan, the Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board,contended that, the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of HR&CE Act has no application in the matter of appointment of non-hereditary trustees in Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Temple, which is governed by a Scheme approved by the Commissioner, under Section 58 of the said Act. Senior Government Pleader S. Rajmohan and Advocates P.B. Krishnan, P.B. Subramanyan, Sabu George and Manu Vyasan Peter appearing for the other respondents contested the petition. The Court noted that Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Temple is a public religious institution coming within the purview of HR&CE Act, under the control of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The temple and its properties were all vested with the deity.It was found that as per Section 39(1) of the Act, where a religious institution included in the list published under Section 38 or over which no Area Committee has jurisdiction, has no hereditary trustee, the Commissioner shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of not less than three and not more than five persons appointed by him. Similarly, under Section 39(2), where, in the case of any such institution having a hereditary trustee or trustees; the Commissioner after notice to such trustee or trustees, and after such enquiry as he deems adequate, considers for reasons to be recorded, that the affairs of the institution are not, and are not likely to be, properly managed by the hereditary trustee or trustees, the Commissioner may, by order appoint such number of non-hereditary trustees as he thinks necessary, so however that the total number of trustees does not exceed five.The petitioner contended that the Scheme of administration of Thirunavaya Sree Navamukunda Temple specifically provides that, the power of the Board and the Area Committee to appoint non-hereditary trustees under Clause (4) is subject to Sections 39 and 41 of the HR&CE Act. Therefore, it was argued that the Commissioner cannot evade serving notice under Section 39(2) citing the scheme is operational. The scheme is framed under the provisions of the Act and no scheme can go beyond the framework of the statute, the petitioner asserted.The Court found that Section 39(2) of the Act relates to the appointment of hereditary trustees in temples where there is no scheme. Once such a scheme is framed, the Board has to see that the administration of the temple is carried on in accordance with that scheme. "The reference of Sections 39 and 41 of the Act in Clause 4 of Ext.P1 scheme does not in any manner affect the right of the Board to appoint non-hereditary trustees in the temple, in terms of Clause 4 of the said scheme. Therefore, we find no merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner, relying on the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act in order to challenge Ext.P5 notification dated 26.07.2021 issued...

Sympathizing With A Political Party Not A Disqualification For Appointment As Non-Hereditary Trustee In A Temple: Kerala High Court

Hannah M Varghese

Tags