# GURUVA YUR DEV ASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR. A v. C.K. RAJAN AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2003] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 619
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2003-08-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2148of1994
- **Bench:** V.N. Khare, S.B. Sinha, G.P. Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/guruva-yur-dev-aswom-managing-committee-and-anr-a-v-c-k-rajan-and-ors-19334
- **Pages:** 47

## Headnote

B
Guruvayoor Devasom Act, 1978, Sections 6, 17, 18, 23 to 26, 36, 38:
Sree Krishna Temple-Management of-Letter received by High Court
Judge containing complaint of serious irregularities in a temple-High Court C
treating the said letter as Public interest litigation petition-Correctness ofHeld: Not correct-When statute governs the field and State takes over the
management ordinarily court would not step in-Court to step in only when
State fails to perform its duty-High Court erred in appointing Commissioner
and taking recourse to the remedies provided for in other statutes-Recourse D
to the other statute may be resorted to when the State finds that its powers
under the Act governing the field are inadequate-However suggestions of
High Court which are already acted upon would not be reopened-Commission
of Enquiry Act-Kerela Public Men's Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries)
Act, 1987-Constitution of India, 1950--Articles 25, 26, 32, 226.
E
Public Interest Litigation-Maintainability and scope of-Discussed
One 'R' addressed a letter dated 3.2.1993 to one of the Judges of
the High Court of Kerala stating serious irregularities, corrupt practices,
maladministration and mismanagement prevailing in the Sree Krishna
temple. He was called by the High Court and his statement was recorded F
on 11.2.1993. The said letter was treated as an original petition, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in its order dated
12.2.1993 highlighted 23 aspects of the matter which had been brought
to its notice and appointed a District Judge as the Commissioner to make
a general enquiry and in particular make a study on the various aspects G
highlighted in the said complaint. The Commissioner pursuant to the order
of the High Court seized all the records of the temple, examined 85
witnesses and submitted as many as 15 interim reports. An SLP was filed
against the order dated 12.2.1993 wherein certain observations were made.
619
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
Another SLP was filed which was dismissed on 10.5.93. Pursuant to
or in furtherance of the observations.made by this Court, an application
was filed for determining the maintainability of the matter as a
preliminary issue.
'B
Commissioner filed his final report on 25.9.93. High Court gave its
judgement on 10.1.94 lamenting that the administration of temple has sunk
to low levels, and this litigation would give a turning point for the
improvement~and better .administration of the Devaswom. Aggrieved
Managing Committee filed the present appeal.
C
:Disposing of-the.appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The people. of India. have turned to courts more and
more for justice whenever there had been a legitimate grievance against
the State's statutory authorities and other public organizations. People
come to courts as the final .resort, to .protect their rights and to secure
D probity in public life. Public interest litigation has come to stay and its
necessity cannot be overemphasized. But with the passage of time, the
process was sometimes abused. Proceedings were initiated in the name of
public interest litigation for ventilating private .disputes •. Some petitions
were publicity oriented. A balance was, therefore, required to.be struck.
E
[641-B,C, E, F)
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Mis Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and
Ors., (1976) 3 SCR 591 and Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, JT (2003)
5 SC I, relied on.
1.2. The Cour.t in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article
F 226 of the Constituti~n of India can entertain a petition filed. by any
interested person in the welfare of the people who is in. a disadvantaged
position and thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The
Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such
disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional
G promises. (641~H; 642-A]
H
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp. SCC 87; People's Union
for Deniocratic Rights and Ors.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,971 of 102,710. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39971 for what follows._

I
-
GURUVA YUR DEV ASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR. A
v.
C.K. RAJAN AND ORS.
AUGUST 14, 2003
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]
B
Guruvayoor Devasom Act, 1978, Sections 6, 17, 18, 23 to 26, 36, 38:
Sree Krishna Temple-Management of-Letter received by High Court
Judge containing complaint of serious irregularities in a temple-High Court C
treating the said letter as Public interest litigation petition-Correctness ofHeld: Not correct-When statute governs the field and State takes over the
management ordinarily court would not step in-Court to step in only when
State fails to perform its duty-High Court erred in appointing Commissioner
and taking recourse to the remedies provided for in other statutes-Recourse D
to the other statute may be resorted to when the State finds that its powers
under the Act governing the field are inadequate-However suggestions of
High Court which are already acted upon would not be reopened-Commission
of Enquiry Act-Kerela Public Men's Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries)
Act, 1987-Constitution of India, 1950--Articles 25, 26, 32, 226.
E
Public Interest Litigation-Maintainability and scope of-Discussed
One 'R' addressed a letter dated 3.2.1993 to one of the Judges of
the High Court of Kerala stating serious irregularities, corrupt practices,
maladministration and mismanagement prevailing in the Sree Krishna
temple. He was called by the High Court and his statement was recorded F
on 11.2.1993. The said letter was treated as an original petition, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in its order dated
12.2.1993 highlighted 23 aspects of the matter which had been brought
to its notice and appointed a District Judge as the Commissioner to make
a general enquiry and in particular make a study on the various aspects G
highlighted in the said complaint. The Commissioner pursuant to the order
of the High Court seized all the records of the temple, examined 85
witnesses and submitted as many as 15 interim reports. An SLP was filed
against the order dated 12.2.1993 wherein certain observations were made.
619
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
Another SLP was filed which was dismissed on 10.5.93. Pursuant to
or in furtherance of the observations.made by this Court, an application
was filed for determining the maintainability of the matter as a
preliminary issue.
'B
Commissioner filed his final report on 25.9.93. High Court gave its
judgement on 10.1.94 lamenting that the administration of temple has sunk
to low levels, and this litigation would give a turning point for the
improvement~and better .administration of the Devaswom. Aggrieved
Managing Committee filed the present appeal.
C
:Disposing of-the.appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The people. of India. have turned to courts more and
more for justice whenever there had been a legitimate grievance against
the State's statutory authorities and other public organizations. People
come to courts as the final .resort, to .protect their rights and to secure
D probity in public life. Public interest litigation has come to stay and its
necessity cannot be overemphasized. But with the passage of time, the
process was sometimes abused. Proceedings were initiated in the name of
public interest litigation for ventilating private .disputes •. Some petitions
were publicity oriented. A balance was, therefore, required to.be struck.
E
[641-B,C, E, F)
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Mis Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and
Ors., (1976) 3 SCR 591 and Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, JT (2003)
5 SC I, relied on.
1.2. The Cour.t in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article
F 226 of the Constituti~n of India can entertain a petition filed. by any
interested person in the welfare of the people who is in. a disadvantaged
position and thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The
Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such
disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional
G promises. (641~H; 642-A]
H
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp. SCC 87; People's Union
for Deniocratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India, [19821 2 SCC 494; Bandhua
' Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 161·and Janata Dal
v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., f 19921 4 SCC 305, relied on.
·'
GURUVA YUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE v. C.K. RAJAN
621
1.3. Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights A
of large number of public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions
of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public
interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating
to pleadings. (642-C)
Charles Sabra} v. Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, (1978) 4 SCC B
104 and Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
(1980) 1 sec 81, relied on.
1.4. Whenever inju!itice is meted out to a large number of people,
the Court will not hesitate to step in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution C
o' India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide
for reasonable and fair trial. (642-D)
Mrs. Mankeka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. v. Miss Rani Jethmalani, AIR
(1979) SC 468 and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D.
Agarwal and Ors., (2003) 5 SCALE 138, relied on.
D
1.5. The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the
Court to look into the grievances complaine<t on behalf of the poor,
depraved, illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong
or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or
legal right. (643-B)
E
·Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India, AIR (1981)
SC 344; Dr. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378 and Balco
Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 333,
relied on.
1.6. When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any
constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged
category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the
question as to the maintainability of the petition. [643-C)
F
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors., [198413 SCC 161, G
relied on.
1.7. Although procedural laws apply on PIL cases but the question
as to whether the principles of res judicata to principles analogous thereto
would apply depend on the nature of the petition as also facts and
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A circumstances of the case'. (643-D(
B
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP., (19891 Supp.
1 SCC 504 and Forward Construction Co. and Ors. v. Prabhat Manda!
(Regd), Andheri and Ors., (1986( 1 SCC 100, relied on.
1.8. The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of
private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a .public interest
litigation. However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might
have moved a Court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal
grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it
C necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in
the interest of justice. [643-E, Fl
D
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [1989)
Supp. l SCC 251 and Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav
Gosavi and Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 227, relied on.
1.9. The Court in special situations may appoint Commission, or
other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and
finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution
taken over by such committee. [643-G)
E
Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar,
[1989) Supp 1 SCC 644 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M V. Nayudu,
[1999) 2 sec 718, relied on.
Sachidanand Pandey and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., [19871
2 SCC 295; Janata Dal v. HS. Chowdhary and Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 305 and
F Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 664
referred to.
1.10. The Court would ordinarily not step out of the known areas of
Judicial review. The High Courts although may pass an order for doing
complete justice to the parties, it does not have a power akin to Article
G 142 of the Constitution of India. (645-El
1.11. Ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition
by way of Public Inter~st litigation questicning constitutionality or validity
of a Statute or a Statutory Rule. (645-FI
H
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409,
GURUVA YUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE t'. C.K. RAJAN
623
relied on.
A
MC. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (20001 6 SCC 213, referred to.
2.1. The case at hand does not fall in any of the aforementioned
categories, where a PIL could be entertained. The right of a person
belonging to a particular religious denomination may sometimes fall foul . B
of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Only when the
fundamental right of a person is infringed by the State, an action in
relation thereto may be justified. Any tight other than the fundamental
rights contained in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India may
either flow from a statute or from the customary laws. Indisputably a
devotee wili have a cause of action to initiate an action before the High C
Court when his right under statutory law is violated. He may also have a
cause of action by reason of action or inaction on the part of the State or
a statutory authority. An appropriate order is required to be passed or a
direction is required to be issued by the High Court. In some case, a person
may fell aggrieved in his individual capacity, but the public at large may D
not. It is trite, where a segment of public is not interested in the cause,
public interest litigation would not ordinarily be entertained. It is possible
to contend that the Hindus in general and the devotees visiting the temple
in particular are interested in proper management of the temple at the
hands of the statutory functionaries. The.Guruvayoor Devasom Act, 1978
is a self-contained Code. Duties and functions are prescribed in the Act E
and the rules framed thereunder. Forums have been created thereunder
for ventilation of the grievances of the affected persons. Ordinarily,
therefore, such forums should be moved at the first instance. The State
should be asked to look into the grievances of the aggrieved devotees, both
as parens partiae as also in discharge of its statutory duties. [648-B, C-H] p
State of WB. and Ors. v. Nuruddin Mallick and Ors., [1998] 8 SCC
143, referred to.
2.2. The doors of the courts must be kept open but the Court cannot
shut its eyes to the ground realities while entertaining a public interest G
litigation. Exercise of self-restraint, thus, should be adhered to, subject of
course to, just exceptions. The High Court in this case adopted an unusual
procedure. It directed seizure of the records only on the premise that the
writ petitioner contended that the allegations can be verified with reference
to the records. (651-G-H; 652-A[
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
2.3. The Court should be circumspect in entertaining such public
interest litigation for another reason. There may be dispute amongst the
devotees as to what practices should be followed by the temple authorities.
There may be dispute as regard the rites and rituals to be performed in
the temple or omission thereof. Any decision .in favour of one sector· of
B the people may hurt the sentiments of the other. The Court normally, thus,
at the first instance would not enter into such disputed arena, particularly,
when by reason thereof the fundamental right of a group of devotees under
Articles 25 and 26 may be infringed. [650-B)
3.1. High Court without cogent and sufficient reason allowed
C
Administr~tor to continue in office although his term was over and he was
posted elsewhere. The High Court took over the power of appointment of
the Commissioner bypassing the procedure set out in the Act by calling
upon the Government to furnish the names of 5 IAS Officers to the Court
so that it could exercise the power of appointment of the Commissioner.
[649-G-H; 650-A)
D
3.2. Administration of temple by entertaining complaints does not
lead to a happy state of affairs. Roving enquiry is not contemplated.
Principles of natural justice and fair play ought fo be followed even in
the pro bono public proceedings. The Court undoubtedly would be parens
partiae in relation to idols, but when the statute governs the field and the
E State takes over the management, ordinarily the Courts would not step
in. The court steps in by Mandamus when the State fails to perform its
duty. It shall also step in when the discretion is exercised but the same
has not been done legally and validly. [65-D-E; 651-E)
F
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and
Ors., f 19981 8 SCC 1, relied on.
3.3. The Court may appoint a Commissioner or amicus for finding
out the truth but when it cannot be found out otherwise. It should have
at the outset called upon the State as also the Managing Committee to
G express their view points. If the allegations are verifiable 09 records, the
courts could have itself examined the same. Before doing so, it must give
an opportunity to the parties to explain things. Only because the Court
arrives a prima facie finding that "all is not well", the same would not
necessarily mean that it must appoint a Commissioner and thereby
purporting to exercise jurisdiction akin to the provisions of the
H Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 or Kerala Public Men's Corruption
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE v. CK. RAJAN
625
(Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1987. The power under the said statute A
is to be exercised by the State if an exigency of situaHon arises therefor.
(652-B, C-DJ
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan, [196311 SCR
561 and Pannalal Pitti v. State of A.P., (1966] 2 SCC 498, relied on.
B
4. When the administration of the temple is within its control and it
exercises the said power in terms of a Statute, the State, it is expected,
normally would itself probe into the alleged irregularities. If the State
through its machinery as provided for in one Act can arrive at the requisite
finding of fact for the purpose of remedying the defects, it may not find it C
necessary to take recourse to the remedies provided for in another statute.
It is trite that recourse to a provision to another statute may be resorted
to when the State finds that its powers under the Act governing the field
is inadequate. The High Courts and the Supreme Court would not
ordinarily issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to carry out its
statutory functions in a particular manner. Normally, the Courts would D
ask the State to perform its statutory functions, if necessary within a time
frame and undoubtedly as and when an order is passed by the State in
exercise of its power under the Statute, it will examine the correctness or
legality thereof by way of judicial review. (653-F-G; 654-A)
Sri Adi Visheshwara Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of UP., (1997) E
4 SCC 606 at 633 and Sri Kanyaka Satram Committee v. Commissioner,
H.R.C. and Ors., (1997) 5 SCC 303 at 304, relied on.
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, ( 1983) 1 SCR 8 and
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC
111, referred to.
F
5. The State admittedly implemented many of the suggestions of the
High Court. They would not be reopened. Some suggestions of the High
Court are pending consideration at the hands of the State. They may be
considered. The State shall, however, as regard the directions of the High G
Court which according to it cannot be complied with, pass appropriate
orders recording sufficient and cogent reasons therefor as expeditiously
as possible and not beyond a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order. If any proceeding is initiated in relation
thereto, the High Court may deal therewith in accordance with law. The
administration of the temple, it is stated, has been taken over by the State H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A and the other statutory functionaries. They shall, having regard to the fact
that special treatment has been accorded to the temple by .the State
Legislature, carry out its activities in true letter and spirit thereof. The
State and the statutory functionaries would be well advised to give full
credence to the tenets and practices subject of course to the provisions of
B the statute. The State should furthermore make all endeavocrs to see that
the sentiments of the devotees are respected. The adverse remarks made
in the impugned judgment against the appellant in C.A. No. 2151/1994
shall stand expunged. [664-E-H]
Sri Sri Sri Lakshmana Yatendrule and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors.,
C (1996) 8 SCC 705; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Or~., [1984)
2 SCR 67; State of Kera/a and Anr. v. N.M Thomas and Ors., [1976) 1 SCR
906; Charan Lal Sahu etc. etc. v. Union of India, (1989) Supp. 2 SCR 597;
Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, [1969) 1
SCC 555 and Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v. Lakhmiram Govindram, ILR
(1888) ~2 Born 247, referred to.
D
E
F
Woolwich Building Socity v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (No.2),
[1992) 3 ALL LR 737 and Johnson v. Unisys Ltd, (2001) ALL ER, 801,
referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2148of1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.94 of the Kerala High Court
in O.P. No. 2071 of 1993.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 2149, 2150 and 2151 of 1994.
K.K. Venugopal, V.R. Reddy, E.M.S. Anam, Fazlin Anam, Krishnan
Venugopal, M.K.D. Namboodari, K.R. Sasiprabhu, John Mathew, K.R.
Nambiar, M.P. Vinod (NP), A.Subba Rao, A.D. Sikri, A.Raghunath, Roy
Abraham,· Dr. Seema Jain, M.M. Kashyap, Sudarsh Menon (NP), N.
Sudhakaran (NP), C.N. Sreekumar (NP), Ms. Nalini Poduval (NP) and
G Aruneshwar Gupta (NP) for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Scope and ambit of a Public Interest Litigation .in the
"matter of management of a temple governed by the provisions of a statutory
H enactment is the primal question involved in· these appeals.
GURUVA YUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE v. C.K. RAJAN [SINHA, J.] 627
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS :
Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur draws millions of people all over the
country. This ancient temple of unique importance is worshipped and held in
great reverence by lakhs of devotees. The temple owns extensive movable
and immovable properties and endowments. It has its own heritages and
A
traditions.
B
The State of Kerala having regard to importance of the said temple
with a view to make suitable provision for the proper administration of the
Guruvayoor Devaswom enacted the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 (Act
14of1978) (for short 'the Aci'). The management of the temple is carried C
out in terms of the provisions of the said Act.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE :
Some of the relevant provisions of the said Act inter a/ia are:
"6. Dissolution and supersession of Committee:
·D
(1) If, in the opinion of the Government, the Committee is not
competent to perform or makes default in performing the duties
imposed on it under this Act or abuses or exceeds its powers; the
Government may after such inquiry as may be necessary, by
notification in the Gazette, supersede the Committee for such E
period, not exceeding six months, as the Government may deem
fit.
(2) Before issuing a notification under sub-section (1) the Goverr-ment
shall communicate to the Committee the grounds on which they
propose to do so, fix a reasonable time for the Committee to F
show cause against the proposal and consider its explanations
and objections, if any.
(3) Any member of the Committee may, within a period of one
month from the date of publication of the notification under subsection (1), institute a suit in the court to set aside the notification. a
(4) Where the Committee is superseded under this section the
Commissioner shall exercise the powers and perform the functions
of the Committee until the expiry of the period of supersession.
Provided that the period during which the Committee remains H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
superseded shall not have the effect of extending the maximum term
of office of a member nominated under clause (d) or clause (e) of
sub-section (l) of section 4 beyond a period of two years.
B
c
D
E
17. Powers and duties of Administrator :
(l) The Administrator shall be the secretary to the Committee and
its chief executive officer and shall, subject to the control of the
Committee, have powers to carry out its decisions in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The Administrator shall arrange for the proper collection of
offerings made in the Temple.
(3) The Administrator shall have power to incur expenditure not
exceeding five thousand rupees to meet unforeseen contingencies
during the interval between two meetings of the Committee.
18. Establishment schedule :
(1) The Administrator may, as soon as may be after the
commencement of this Act, prepare and submit to the Committee
a schedule setting forth the duties, designations and grades of the
officers and employees who may in his opinion constitute the
establishment of the Temple and embodying his proposals with
regard to the salaries and allowances payable to them.
(2) The Committee shall forward the schedule submitted to it under
sub-section (1) with its recom~endations thereon to the
Commissioner for approval.
(3) The Commissioner shall, after considering the recommendations
F
of the Committee, approve such schedule either without
modification or with such modifications as he deems necessary,
and there upon such schedule as approved by the Commissioner
shall come into force.
(4) No change shall be effected in the schedule except with the
G
approval of the Commissioner.
H
(5) Subject to such exceptions as the Committee may by general or
special order direct, the officers. and employees of the Devaswom
in the service of the Devaswom iipmediately before the
commencement of this Act shall continue as such, and the
conditions of their servke. shall be such as may be prescribed by
GURUVA YUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE v. C.K. RAJAN [SINHA, J.] 629
regulations made under this Act.
(6) A person who does not profess the Hindu Religion or believe ill:
Temple worship shall be disqualified for being appointed as, or
for being, an officer or employee of the Devi;tswom.
23. Accounts and Audit :
(l) The Committee shall keep regular accounts of all receipts and
disbursements.
(2) The accounts of the Devaswom shall be subject to concurrent
audit, that is to say, the audit shall take place as and when
expenditure is incurred.
(3) The audit shall be made by auditors appointed in the prescribed
manner, who shall be deemed to be public servants within the
meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45
of 1860).
24. Authority to whom audit report is to be submitted:
After completing_ the audit for any year or shorter period or for any
transactions as he deems fit, the auditor shall send a report to the
Commissioner.
A
B
c
D
33. Power of Government to call for records and pass orders :
E
(1) The Government may call for and examine the record of the
Commissioner or of the Committee in respect of any proceeding,
not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or application
to the court is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves that the
provisions of this Act have not been violated or the interests of F
the Devaswom have been safeguarded and if, in any case, it
appears to the Government that any decision or order passed in
such proceeding has violated the provisions of this Act or is not
in the interest of the Devaswom, they may modify, annual or
reverse such decision or order or remit such decision or order for G
reconsideration :
Provided that the Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to
any party unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his
representations.
(2) The Government may stay the execution of any such decision H
630
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
or order pending the exercise of their powers under subsection (I) in respect thereof.
36. Removal of difficulties :
If.any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act,
B
the Government may, as occasion may require, by order do anything
not inconsistent with this Act or the rules made thereunder, which
appears to them necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty.
c
38. Rules:
(I) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, make rules
to carry out the purposes of this Act. ·
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for -
(a) the publication of the administration report under section
D
13;
E
F
G
(b) the CU$tody of the records and properties of the Devaswom;
(c) the payment of contributions towards the leave allowances,
pension and provident fund of the Administrator;
(d) any other matter which is required to be, or may be,
prescribed under this Act.
. (3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid as soon as may
be after it is made before the Legislative Assembly while it
is in session for a total period of fourteen days which may
be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions,
and if, before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid
or the session immediately following, the Legislative
Assembly makes any modification in the rule or decides that
the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have
effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the
case may be so however that any such modification or
annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of
anything previously done under that rule."
The State of Kerala in exercise of its power conferreq under Section
H 38 of the Act made rules known as The Guruvayoor Devaswom Rules, 1980
I-
GURUVAYUR UEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE v. C.K. RAJAN [SINHA, J.] 631
(for short 'the Rules'). Rule 10 of the Rules provides for publication of A
Administration Report and is in the following terms :
"10. Committee to submit Administration Report: The Committee
J
shall prepare and submit to the Commissioner, a report on the
administration of the affairs of the Devaswom relating to each calendar
year within three months of the completion of the year.
B
(2) The Commissioner shall forward such report with his comments
to Government within 30 days l)f its receipt by him.
(3) The Administration report shall among other things contain details
about, (i) the working of the Act, (ii) the income and expenditure, c
(iii) the amenities provided to the worshippers, (iv) the works
undertaken, (v) the festivals conducted, (vi) special features or
incidents during the year, (vii) financial position, (viii) working
of subordinate temples and other institutions under the
management of the Devaswom and (ix) such other matters of
public interest.
D
(4) The report shall be published on the notice board of the
Devaswom and in the Kerala Gazette.
(5) Abstract of the report shall be published at least in one Malayalam
daily having wide circulation in the area."
E
The statutory provisions contained in the said Act and the rules framed
thereunder are of wide amplitude as would appear from the following :
(a) Section SC read with section 5(3)(c) of the Act read with section
5(4) pennits the State Government to initiate proceedings against, and remove,
F
any member of the Managing Committee if they are satisfied that he has been
guilty of corruption or misconduct in the administration of the temple;
(b) Section 6 pennits the State Government to dissolve and supersede
the Managing Committee as a whole for incompetence or default in perfonning
its duties imposed on it under Section I 0 of the Act after giving it an G
opportunity to show cause;
-
(c) Section 13 read with rule 10 pennits the monitoring of the Managing
Committees functioning by requiring it to submit and public a report on the
administration of the affairs of the temple;
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
(d) Section 23 read with rule 17 provides for the Committee keeping
regular accounts of receipts and disbursements and concurrence audit of those
accounts, i.e., an audit that takes as and when an expenditure is incurred, by
auditors appointed in the prescribed manner;
( e) Section 25 provides that the auditor shall specify in its report all
B cases of irregular, illegal or improper expenditure or failure to recover money
or rather properties to the Devaswom or loss or waste of money or other
property thereof, caused by neglect or misconduct;
(t) Section 26(2) permits the Commissioner appointed under Section
C 2(b) of the Act to pass an order of surcharge against the Managing Committee
or any officer or employee if he is satisfied that they are guilty of
misappropriation or willful waste or of gross neglect resulting in loss to the
temple after giving them an opportunity to show cause why an order of
surcharge should not be passed; and
D
(g) Under Section 33, the State Government in tum is empowered to
E
call for and modify, annul or reverse decision of the Commissioner or of the
Managing Committee after calling for and examining the record if the
government is satisfied that the decision has violated the provisions of the
Act or is not in the interest of the temple after giving a reasonable opportunity
to any party that rriay be prejudiced by such order.
GENESIS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATlON:
One Shri C.K. Rajan addressed a letter dated 3.2.1993 to one of the
Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Kerala and thereby bringing to his
notiCe purported serious irregularities, corrupt practices, mal-administration
F and mismanagement prevailing in the temple. He was called by the High
Court and its Registrar recorded his statement on 11.2.1993. The said letter
was treated as an original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The High Court in its order dated 12.2.1993 highlighted 23 aspects of
the matter which had been brought to its notice and appointed one Shri S.
G Krishnan Unni; District Judge Officiating as the Director of Training, High
Court of Kerala as the Commissioner to make a general enquiry and in
particular make a study on the various aspects highlighted in the said complaint.
The Commissioner pursuant to the order of the High Court seized all the
records of the temple, examined 85 witnesses and submitted as many as 15
interim reports on 15.2.1993, 10.3.1993, 30.3.1993, 3.4.1993, 16.4.1993,
H
··-
/
GURUVA YUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE v. C.K. RAJAN [SINHA, J.] 633
12.5.1993, 9.6.1993, 26.6.1993, 20.7.1993, 21.7.1993, 4.8.1993, ll.8.1993, A
13.8.1993, 2.9.1993, 2.9.1993. It submitted its final report on 25.9.1993.
An order passed by the High Court on 12.2.1993 was the subject matter
of a Special· Leave Petition before this Court being SLP (Civil) .. ./93 CC
20040 wherein this Court suggested in its order dated 26.3.1993 the following
guidelines for consideration of the Court :
B
"(i) It is not disputed that the management of the Guruvayur temple
is governed by the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978. There may
be other State legislations governing the funr.tioning of religious
institution in the State. The High Court shall take into
consideration the relevant provisions of these enactments.
C
(ii) The Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and the State
of Kerala are necessary parties in this public interest litigation.
The High Court shall take into consideration the objections
including of preliminary nature raised/ to be raised by these
parties.
(iii) The appointment, tenure of office and other conditions of service
of the Administrator and other officers connected with the
Guruvayur, as are provided by law shall be kept in view while
passing any orders concerning these officers.
D
The High Court is requested to conclude the proceedings E
expeditiously and if possible, within six months from today."
Another Special Leave Petition was filed praying for an order restraining
the Enquiry Commissioner from submitting his final report being SLP (Civil)
NO. 3231/93 but the same was dismissed vide this Court's order dated
10.5.1993 observing :
"Learned counsel for the petitioner urged and vehemently pleaded for
restraining the Enquiry Commissioner from submitting his final report
as in that case the High Court may not decide the preliminary objection
raised on their behalf that there being a detailed procedure provided
F
in the Statute, the High Court should not have exercised its G
extraordinary jurisdiction. We do not find any justification for such
apprehension.
In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed."
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the observations made by this Court, H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A an application was filed for detennining the maintainability of the matter as
a preliminary issue. However, in the meantime, the Commissioner had
submitted l 0 interims reports, examined a number of persons and a large
number of persons were also impleaded as parties in the writ petition.
Mr. V.R. Reddy appearing for the State of Kerala allegedly conceded
B that the plea regarding want of jurisdiction raised did not merit consideration
at that stage and the same had become infructuous.
c
D
E
F
G
H
The. Bench noticed that the reports contained various observations and
recommendations as regard the interim reports. Some sta~ements were filed
in respect of some of the reports by some of the respondents only. Correctness
or otherwise of various reports and suggestions made therein were, however,
not questioned.
The third respondent had filed the following statements to the following
interim reports :
No. of the
Date of the
interim reports
statement.
3
5.4.1993
4
17.10.1993
6
17.10.1993
7
17.10.1993
8
17.10.1993
9
17.10.1993
IO
17.10.1993
11
17.10.1993
12
17.10.1993
13
17.10.1993
14
18.9.1993
15
17.10.1993
The first respondent - State of Kerala had fiied the following statements
in relation to the following. interim reports :
"l. Statement filed by the Commissioner and Secretary (Finance)
..
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE v. C.K. RAJAN [SINHA, J.] 635
dated 15.10.1993
A
2.
Statement filed by the Government Pleader dated 2.12.1993
3.
Preliminary objections dated 29.5.1993".
As noticed hereinbefore, the Commissioner filed his final report on
25.9.1993.
B
The State of Kerala prayed for time for filing objections to the
Commissioner's final report and was granted time thrice but it ultimately
failed to respond thereto.
No affidavit by way of an objection to the said reports was filed by any C
party. During hearing of the matter, the Chainnan, the Guruvayur Devaswom
Managing Committee (for short 'the Committee'), and the State agreed with
many of the recommendations made by the Commissioner. Appellant herein
also substantially agreed with various recommendations of the Commissioner.
The Court specifically asked for objections to the recommendations of D
the Commissioner. The fifth respondent - M.P. Gopalakrishnan and the third
respondent - Chainnan of the Committee filed objections but at the argument
stage only a few of the matters stated in the statements were highlighted or
pressed.
Upon considerations of the various matters the High Court in its E
impugned judgment arrived at its findings on the recommendations of the
Commission, the summary whereof has been stated in para 64 thereof.
The High Court lamented :
"The temple and the idol of Guruvayur is the very Brahman itself, so F
easily obtained,Jwhich can, in the ordinary course, be obtained only
after undergoing all trials and tribulations. That is the greatness of
this Lord of Guruvayur (Sree Krishna), the temple sought by millions
all over and about which every Hindu holds a candle, but alas! Its
administration has sunk to low levels, to be ashamed of; we hope and G
pray that this litigation will give a turning point for the improvement
and better administration of the Devaswom."
·
SUBMISSIONS :
Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Mr. V.R. Reddy, the learned senior counsels H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A appearing on behalf of the appellant and the State of Kerala respectively, at
the outset invited our attention to the orders of this Court dated 26.3.1993
passed in SLP (C) No ... ./93 CC 20040, and orders dated 26.4.1993 as well
as l 0.5.1993 passed in SLP (C) No. 3231193 and submitted that keeping in
view of the fact that this Court was approached at least on three different
B occasions wherein the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate a public interest
litigation was questioned, the High Court committed a manifest error in not
deciding the same as a p1eliminary issue.
The learned counsels further drew our attention to the order passed in
CMP No. l 0669 of 1993 requesting the High Court to consider the
C maintainability as a preliminary issue. It was submitted that a wrong statement
has further been recorded in the said order to the effect that the Managing
Committee has unanimously resolved welcoming the enquiry and they would
not take steps assailing the same.
The High Court was further wrongly opined that the said CMP has
D become infructuous having regard to the fact that l 0 interim reports have
been submitted by the Enquiry Commissioner and the work of the
Commissioner was practically nearing completion.
Mr. Venugopal would urge that the High Court misdirected itself in not
only entertaining the letter of the Fifth Respondent as a public interest litigation
E but also by appointing a commissioner and directing seizure of all the
documents resulting in serious adverse publicity against the appellant·
committee, purported to be relying on or on the basis of the statement of
Respondent No. l that some of the allegations made by him would be borne
out from the records maintained by the temple.
F
Drawing our attention to the provisions of Commission of Enquiry Act,
1952 and the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries)
Act, 1987 (Act 24 of 1988), the learned counsel would submit that for all
intent and purport the High Court exercised its jurisdiction in terms thereof
and, thus, assumed a jurisdiction which it did not have. A full-fledged enquiry
G akin to the provisions of the 1952 Act and Kerala Public Men's Corruption
(Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1987 is unknown in a public interest
litigation and in this behalf our attention has been drawn to the appointment
of amicus as also the appointment of lawyers for the Commissioner.
The learned counsel, in particular, drew our attention to the order dated
H 17th February, 1993 passed in O.P. No. 2071 of 1993 and submitted that a
GURUVA YUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE v. C. K. RAJAN [SINHA, J.] 63 7
perusal thereof would show that '-e High Court even directed the Director of A
Public Relations for wide publication of these matters and invited complaints
and suggestions from the public in general.
By reason of the said order, the High Court also appointed M/s. Menon
& Menon, Chartered Accountants, Ernakulam as auditors. The Enquiry
Commissioner was given accommodation at the High Court as also at B
Guruvayur. The Registrar of the High Court was directed to depute appropriate
and necessary staff to the Enquiry Commissioner. Even a police officer was
appointed to assist the Enquiry Commissioner in the field work.
The High Court also, the learned counsel would submit, must be held
to have committed a manifest error in taking over the administration of the C
temple for all intent and purport; even by going to the extent of directing that
the Administrator would not be transferred.
Mr. Venugopal would urge that the said Act contains provisions for
effective management of the temple and the purported assumption of D
jurisdiction by the High Court must be held to be bad in law.