Why SC Upheld Rights Of Erstwhile Rulers Of Travancore As "Shebait" Of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple?

The Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on Monday, upheld the rights of the erstwhile Royal Family of Travancore as the shebait of Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple at Thiruvananthapuram. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra also directed that the powers of 'the Ruler of Travancore' under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act (TC Act) with respect to temple administration be delegated to the Administrative Committee constituted by the court. This piece intends to summarize the issues and their consideration by the Court in its judgment.The Kerala HC JudgmentThe sole issue considered by the High Court was whether the younger brother of the last Ruler of Travancore could after the death of the last Ruler on 20.7.1991 claim to be the "Ruler of Travancore" within the meaning of that term contained in Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 to claim ownership, control and management of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple located at Trivandrum. The High Court had held that the "Ruler" is not a status that could be acquired through succession and therefore, after the death of the last Ruler on 20.7.1991, there is no Ruler in the erstwhile State of Travancore. It further held that Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma cannot step into the shoes of the last Ruler to claim management of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple by relying on the powers conferred under Section 18(2) of the TC Act.Also Read Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Management Dispute : Background & TimelineStatus and Entitlement of Royal Family Vis-a-vis TempleIn the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the issues concerning the status and entitlement of Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma including the relationship vis-à-vis the Temple are concerned, under following five segments.A] Situation obtaining before and upto the date when the Covenant was entered into in May 1949.B] Effect of the Covenant that was entered into in May 1949. C] Effect of the Constitution of India as it stood before the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 and of the provisions of the TC Act.D] Effect of the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971. E] Effect of the death of the person who had signed the Covenant as the Ruler of Travancore.[A] Rulers of Travancore, till the signing of the Covenant, were in the capacity as Managers or Shebaits of the TempleThe Court, initially, examined the different accounts and beliefs with regard to the origin and how the Temple was set up, and observed that every version accepts that the King of Travancore had a role in the administration of the Temple to begin with, and that he was the one who re-constructed the Temple after a major fire that occurred in the year 1686, and installed a new idol and took full control of the Temple. The Court also observed that the stand in the affidavits filed on behalf of the State in the High Court accepts the position of the erstwhile royal family vis-à-vis the Temple and Sri Padmanabhaswamy: That the royal family of Travancore had been making endowments in favour of the Temple and that Lord Padmanabha is considered as the family deity by the erstwhile royal family."Leaving aside the issue of ownership as such status is not claimed by the appellant No.1 or any of the family members who have intervened, the fact remains that it is well accepted that the management of the Temple had all along been in the hands of the ruling family or the Travancore Palace. As stated by the State, that has been the traditional and customary belief. Such management has spanned, not for few years or decades, but dates back to centuries"The court also, referred to the Amicus curiae report and other history regarding the relation between Royal Family and concluded thus:"Tested on any parameter, such as historical accounts, popular and customary beliefs, certain practices connected with the rituals and affairs of the Temple that mandatorily require the presence and participation of the Ruler, deep involvement of the members of ruling family and their connection with the Temple and Sri Padmanabhaswamy at various stages of their lives, "The Thrippati Danam" and its significance, and long recognised and accepted fact that the management of the Temple had always been with the Ruler, lead us to conclude that for centuries, the Temple had been under the exclusive management of successive Rulers from the ruling family of Travancore and that the Rulers of Travancore, till the signing of the Covenant, were in the capacity as Managers or Shebaits of the Temple. ""The expression Shebait is derived from "sewa" which means service and Shebait, in literal sense, means one who renders "sewa" to the idol or a deity. Every Ruler of Travancore would call himself "Padmanabhadasa" i.e. one who is engaged in the service of Sri Padmanabhaswamy. "[A] Mere factum that no emoluments are attached to the office of the Shebait would not make any difference to the character of...

Why SC Upheld Rights Of Erstwhile Rulers Of Travancore As "Shebait" Of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple?

Ashok Kini

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Why SC Upheld Rights Of Erstwhile Rulers Of Travancore As "Shebait" Of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple?

Ashok Kini

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers