Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Composition Of Kerala Temple Trust; Issues Notice On Plea By Hereditary Trustee

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered status quo in a petition filed by a hereditary trustee of the Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Temple of Kerala challenging the notification issued by the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board that invited applications to the post of non-hereditary trustees at the temple."Status quo regarding composition of Trust shall be maintained. Issue notice on stay", a Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia ordered."I am a hereditary trustee. I'm a Raja. The government wants to interfere now..", Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the petitioner, submitted.He also pressed for a stay with regard to the notification, however, the Bench was not inclined to grant the said relief initially. "We will issue notice but will not stay. Let's see", the Bench said. "We have issued a notice on stay, what more do you want?" Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia queried. "That will trigger them to rush into things", Naidu submitted, while requesting for a status quo if not a stay, which was eventually allowed. The present Special Leave Petition, filed through Advocates Siddharth R Gupta and Sriram Parakkat, was moved challenging a judgment of the Kerala High Court which refused to interfere with the government notification.The petitioner said that he is a Hereditary Member and the Managing Trustee, Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Temple Trust, and for the past 30 years, has been serving the temple and its devotees.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 SLP points out that the petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of the Respondents taken in violation of the Section 39 (2) of the Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowment Act (the Act), 1959. Explaining this, the SLP says that the Respondents had issued a scheme as provided under Section 58 of the Act in an attempt to add non-hereditary members to the Trust Board. The SLP further submitted that the High Court had failed to appreciate that the scheme is subservient to the provisions of section 39 (2) of the Act, 1951 which has provided a very clear scenario in which non-hereditary members may be appointed if the need arises. But in the present case, the respondents have attempted to circumvent the pre-conditions of the statute via the said scheme."Section 39 (2) of the Act provides for notice to the Hereditary Trustees and a meaningful hearing is to be held with regard to the need and necessity of appointing Non-Hereditary Trustees. Thereafter, the authority is required to enter on finding on materials before it that the functioning of hereditary trustees of the institution is wanting and institution is not properly managed by the hereditary trustees. In the present case, no such notice, no opportunity, no finding and no enquiry was conducted before issuing the Notice."Further, the High Court also failed to appreciate that the scheme itself is irrelevant when the appointment of non-hereditary members is being made on allegations of alleged mismanagement contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1951, the petition alleged. Also, the appointment of non-hereditary trustees can only be done when an enquiry under the provisions of the Act is carried out and sufficient proof has been received that the affairs of the institution are not properly managed by the existing management, the plea said. "Because the respondent failed to comply with the provisions laid down in S.39(2) of the HR&CE Act,1951 the appointment of non-hereditary trustees can only be appointed when there is proof based on the enquiry to be conducted as per statute that the affairs of the institution are not, and are not likely to be properly managed by the existing management. All annual festivals and intermittent festivals are conducted under the auspicious of hereditary trustees with their proactive support of Palakkattussery Sevana Samajam which is the body corporate of royal family members nominating hereditary trustees. In the absence of such a finding or report, it is highly improper and egregious to appoint nonhereditary trustees."The petition further points out that he law laid down in S. 39 (5) of the Act is very clear as where a vacancy arises in the office of a non-hereditary trustee appointed under subsection (2) the commissioner shall not fill up such a vacancy unless, for reasons to be recorded, he considers it necessary to do so. "A nonhereditary trustee appointed in the vacancy shall be deemed to have been appointed under subsection (2) and the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly."Along with this, the SLP alleges that the appointment of Non-hereditary Trustees is a cover action to induct their own personnel into the board of Trustees."Appointment of three Non-Hereditary Trustees in pursuance to the notification dated 26.07.2021 is an attempt to outweigh the authority of hereditary trustees once and for all and to take control of the entire...

Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Composition Of Kerala Temple Trust; Issues Notice On Plea By Hereditary Trustee

Rintu Mariam Biju

Tags