Kerala High Court
T.G.Mohan Das vs State Of Kerala
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1940
WP(C).No. 33301 of 2015
PETITIONER:
T.G.MOHAN DAS,S/O. GOVINDA NAYIK, AGED 59 YEARS,
SANTHI NAGAR COLONY, HOUSE NO.9/996, KOOVAPPADAM,
KOCHI - 682 002.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
SMT.M.DEEPAMOL
SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
2. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM -
695003
3. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR 680 001.
4. DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY,
CONVENER, LEGAL & PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE, HINDU
DHARMA ACHARYA SABHA A 77, NIZAMUDIN EAST, NEW DELHI
110013.
5. GENERAL SECRETARY,
KERALA PULAYA MAHASABHA NANDAVANAM,
TRIVANDRUM 695 033.
6. GENERAL SECRETARY,
SNDP YOGAM HEAD OFFICE, KOLLAM 691001.
7. GENERAL SECRETARY,
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERY,
KOTTAYAM 686102
PBS
WP(C).No. 33301 of 2015
8. GENERAL SECRETARY
HINDU AIKYA VEDI, FORT P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695023
*ADDL.R9 IMPLEADED
*ADDL.R9: K.P.RAJAN ALIAS SWAMY AYYAPPADAS,
AGED 65 YEARS,S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT KUMBALAPPALLY HOUSE, (THATWAMASI),
MUTHALAKODAM PO., THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 686 506.
*ADD.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2/2/15 IN I.A. 17099/15
R1 BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.C.P. SUDHAKARA PRASAD
R2 BY SRI.D.SREEKUMAR,SC
SRI.K.SASIKUMAR, SC
R3 BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN V. ALAPPATT.
R4 BY DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
R6 BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA)
R8 BY ADV. SMT.K.L.SREEKALA
SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR
SRI.M.A.VINOD
SMT.B.SABITHA (DESOM)
ADDL R9 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
SMT.N.SHOBHA
SRI.A.S.SREEKANTH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2018,
THE COURT ON 02/04/2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PBS
WP(C).No. 33301 of 2015 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT COVENANT BETWEEN MAHARAJAS OF TRAVANCORE
AND COCHIN ALONG WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF INDIAN UNION IN MAY
1949.
P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN TIMES NEWS NETWORK
P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA SECRETARIAT OFFICE
MANUAL
P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DEBATE IN THE ASSEMBLY IS
ATTACHED
P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE REPORT OF K.P. SANKARAN
NAIR COMMISSION IS ATTACHED.
P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KUTTIKRISHNA MENON
COMMISSION REPORT.
P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SANKARAN NAIR COMMISSION
REPORT.
P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COCHIN THIRUMALA DEVASWOM MANAGEMENT SCHEME
APPROVED BY AS PER GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS NO PD 2-50233/24,
30/6/1949
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
PBS
2/4/2018
CR
P.R.Ramachandra Menon &
Devan Ramachandran, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.33301 of 2015 K
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2018
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Tersely expressed, the petitioner challenges the vires of Sections 4(1) and 63 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 ('the Act' for brevity).
2. The challenge impelled is fundamentally on the assertion that these two Sections are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and this assertion is sought to be justified on the bedrock of the various pleadings contained in the writ petition. Since it, therefore, requires a glance of the specific pleadings before the reliefs sought for by the petitioner can be considered, we deem it appropriate to make a brief narration of the averments of the petitioner to begin with.
3. The petitioner says that he is a devout Hindu and a believer of temple worship. He adds that he is a retired Electronics Engineer and 'a public worker of a reasonable WPC 33301/15 2 repute' residing at Kochi. As per his asseverations, he was the Vice President of the Bharatiya Vichara Kendram and 'a writer on various social and religious issues'. As per him, he worships regularly at the Thrichattukulam Mahadeva Temple and Pazhayannoor Bhagavathi Temple, which are respectively an incorporated Devaswom included in Schedule I of the Act and a temple governed by Section 61(5) of the Act, thereby being under the administrative control and supervision of the second and third respondent Boards, namely the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and Cochin Devaswom Board (CDB) respectively.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition bringing on array respondents 4 to 8 presumably to support his case, which, as per his assertions, is a public cause and therefore, merits and deserves the strength and support from like minded individuals and groups.
5. The fourth respondent is Dr.Subramanian Swamy, who, the petitioner says, is impleaded in the writ petition in his capacity as the Convener of the Legal and Parliamentary WPC 33301/15 3 Committee of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, which is stated to be an 'Apex Body of Prominent Sanyasins' all over India and which is said to be involved in 'formation of Schemes for administration of temples and engaged in advising various Devaswoms and Parliamentarians/ Legislators'.
6. The petitioner has further arrayed respondents 5 to 8, namely, Kerala Pulaya Maha Sabha, the SNDP Yogam, the Nair Service Society and Hindu Aikya Vedi, who, he says represent the major Hindu communities in Kerala and who have all serious interests in the lis involved in this writ petition.
7. In addition to these respondents, three others, namely, a person by name Mr.K.P.Rajan @ Swami Ayyappadas and two Associations by names Hindu Help Line and Bharat Kshetra Bhumi Samrakshana Vedi Charitable Trust, have also caused themselves to be impleaded as additional ninth, tenth and eleventh respondents, which was allowed by this Court in I.A.Nos.17099/2015, 2767/2018 and 2833/2018. These WPC 33301/15 4 persons and Associations have got themselves impleaded only to support the petitioner and technically may not be necessary parties in deciding this lis. However, since the issue is one in public interest, we nevertheless did not deny opportunity to the learned counsel appearing for such proposed impleaded respondents also to make submissions before us.
8. The petitioner submits that the proximate cause for him to file this writ petition is because he is aggrieved by the arbitrariness in the process of nominations and elections of members to the TDB and CDB as is stipulated in Sections 4(1) and 63 of the Act. According to him, the method of nomination and appointment of members to the TDB and CDB are undemocratic and is in derogation of the rights of the devotees to be part of such process. His unequivocal assertion is that under the prescriptions of the two sections aforementioned, the nominations and election of the members to the two Boards in question are vested with the Hindu Ministers of the Cabinet of the Government of Kerala and the members of the Legislative Assembly who profess the Hindu WPC 33301/15 5 religion, exclusively but that no devotees, including the petitioner, would obtain any right to be part of this process. The petitioner alleges that the manner of nominations and elections, as provided in these two sections, to the post of members to the Boards violates the principles of democratic election and that it annuls the constitutional right of every devotee to be able to nominate and elect members through a process of direct election.
9. We have heard Sri.Mohan Parasaran, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.Sajith Kumar.V., appearing for the petitioner; The learned Advocate General assisted by Sri.V.Manu, the learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the State of Kerala; Dr.Subramaniam Swamy, the fourth respondent appearing in person; Sri.K.P.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board; Sri.K.Shrihari Rao, learned counsel appearing for the additional ninth respondent; Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned counsel for the sixth respondent; Sri.Gopakumaran Nair, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Krishnadas P.Nair, WPC 33301/15 6 appearing for the eight respondent; Sri.R.Krishna Raj, learned counsel for the additional tenth respondent and Sri.G.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the additional eleventh respondent.
10. Since our consideration on the issues, submissions, contentions and reliefs made and sought for in this writ petition would ultimately involve the interpretation of the two sections whose vires are disputed herein, we deem it appropriate, as a prefatory step, to read the two sections closely, for which purpose, we extract them as under:
b