Kerala High Court
Suo Motu vs The State Of Kerala on 31 January, 2024
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 11TH MAGHA, 1945
SSCR NO.27 OF 2023
(TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD-SABARIMALA SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
REPORT-SM NO.27/2023-REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SPECIAL
COMMISSIONER, SABARIMALA AS DIRECTED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA IN SSCR NO.4/2023 REGARDING THE
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DEVASWOM WATCHER AT
SABARIMALA SREE DHARMA SHASTHA TEMPLE)
PETITIONER:
SUO MOTU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
695001
2 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE,
KAWADIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003
3 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS,
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695005
2
SSCR No.27 of 2023
4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SABARIMALA,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003
5 CHIEF VIGILANCE SECURITY OFFICER (SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE- VIGILANCE)
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE,
KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695003
6 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GROUP, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 023
7 ARUNKUMAR.S,
DEVASWOM WATCHER, MANACAUD DEVASWOM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GROUP,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009
BY ADVS.
SUJIN S
SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER;
SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL - TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD;
SRI N.RAGHURAJ - AMICUS CURIAE FOR SPL
COMMISSIONER, SABARIMALA;
SRI N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR) - FOR R7
THIS SABARIMALA SPECIAL COMMISSIONER REPORT HAVING COME
UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
SSCR No.27 of 2023
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala has filed this report, in terms of the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 15.02.2023 in SSCR No.4 of 2023.
2. SSCR No.4 of 2023 was filed by the Special Commissioner, regarding the misbehaviour of a guard deployed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, on the Makaravilakku day, i.e., 14.01.2023, after 'Deeparadhana', towards the pilgrims having darshan along the first row in front of Sreekovil of Sabarimala Sannidhanam. As per the visuals that appeared in visual media, the guard standing at Sopanam, in from of Sreekovil, violently pushed the pilgrims having darshan along the first row in front of Sreekovil. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala called for a report from the 5th respondent-Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, regarding the identity of the Devaswom guard, who is identified as one Arunkumar. S, Devaswom Watcher, Manacaud Devaswom, Thiruvananthapuram Group, who was posted on special duty at Sopanam. According to the report of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, due to the pressure of the crowd from the flyover to the temple after 'Deeparadhana', there arose congestion and a direction was given to speed up the crowd flow. 4 SSCR No.27 of 2023 In that process, the Devaswom guard pushed forward the pilgrims coming along the first row. The Devaswom guard, who has misbehaved with pilgrims, has been relieved from duty at Sabarimala and sent back to his home station on the next day itself, i.e., on 15.01.2023. That SSCR was disposed of, by a detailed order dated 15.02.2023, by directing the 2nd respondent Board and its officials to take necessary steps to ensure that an incident like that occurred on the Makaravilakku day, i.e., 14.01.2023, is not repeated in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam in future. In that order, this Court made it clear that the misbehavior of the additional 7th respondent Devaswom guard towards pilgrims, which is a serious misconduct on his part, has to be dealt with appropriately in the disciplinary proceedings that has to be initiated against him. The decision taken by the disciplinary authority shall be placed before this Court through the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. It was ordered that the additional 7th respondent shall not be deployed hereafter for special duty in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam for ensuring smooth flow of pilgrims. Paragraphs 22, 23 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus;
"22. The incident occurred on 14.01.2023. The above report filed by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala came up for 5 SSCR No.27 of 2023 consideration before this Court on 16.01.2023, in which this Court passed a detailed order. In paragraph 4 of that order, we found that, as stated in the report of the Special Commissioner, the body language and the facial expression of the Devaswom guard, i.e., the additional 7th respondent herein, while shoving the pilgrims in front of the Sreekovil of Sabarimala Sannidhanam, have to be deprecated in the strongest words, and for such misbehavior towards pilgrims he has to be proceeded against, in accordance with law. On 16.01.2023, it was ordered that, an affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, explaining the facts and circumstances and also the action, if any, taken against the additional 7th respondent for his misbehavior towards pilgrims shall be placed on record by 23.01.2023. Despite the interference in the matter by this Court, the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have not chosen to preserve the CCTV footage of the incident that occurred on 14.01.2023. The casual approach taken by the Board, in a case involving misbehavior of a Devaswom guard towards pilgrims, which is a serious misconduct on the part of the additional 7th respondent, has to be deprecated in the strongest words and we do so.
23. The pilgrims have a tendency to stand in the rows in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and have darshan of Lord Ayyappa for a long duration. If it is permitted, the queue will get longer and the waiting time of the pilgrims in the queue will increase by hours. The pilgrims who stand in the rows in front of the Sopanam and have darshan for a long duration have to be nudged (pushed gently) to go forward by the Devaswom guards and also police personnel responsible for crowd management, in order to ensure a 6 SSCR No.27 of 2023 smooth flow of pilgrims. When the time for closing the Sanctum Sanctorum approaches or in the case of an extremely large crowd, in their anxiety to ensure darshan for all pilgrims in the queue, the movement of pilgrims is made faster by the Devaswom guards and police personnel. The visuals that appeared in visual media regarding the incident that occurred on the Makaravilakku day i.e., 14.01.2023, in front of the Sreekovil of Sabarimala Sannidhanam, would show that the additional 7th respondent shoved (pushed roughly) the pilgrims in the first row in front of the Sopanam, instead of the pilgrims being nudged to go forward. The body language and facial expression of the additional 7th respondent while shoving the pilgrims in the first row in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam are not that can be expected from a Devaswom guard deployed for regulating the movement of pilgrims at Sabarimala Sannidhanam. The Police Special Officer at Sannidhanam or the Sopanam Officer of the 2nd respondent Board ought to have prevented the additional 7th respondent from shoving the pilgrims in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam.
Having considered the materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this SSCR by directing the 2nd respondent Board and its officials to take necessary steps to ensure that an incident like that occurred on the Makaravilakku day, i.e., 14.01.2023, is not repeated in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam in future. The misbehavior of the additional 7th respondent Devaswom guard towards pilgrims, which is a serious misconduct on his part, has to be dealt with appropriately in the disciplinary proceedings that has to be initiated against him. The decision taken by the disciplinary 7 SSCR No.27 of 2023 authority shall be placed before this Court through the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. The additional 7th respondent shall not be deployed hereafter for special duty in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam for ensuring smooth flow of pilgrims."
3. The order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, pursuant to the direction contained in the aforesaid order, whereby, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 7th respondent stands closed by giving him a warning and to treat the period of suspension as eligible leave, is placed on record as Annexure I
4. On 05.10.2023, when this SSCR came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 6. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the 7th respondent, returnable within four weeks. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court, the entire files relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 7th respondent.
5. On 03.11.2023, the learned Standing Counsel made available for the perusal of this Court, the files relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 7th respondent, 8 SSCR No.27 of 2023 which was directed to be retained by him.
6. On behalf of the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, the Secretary of the Board has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 10.01.2024. The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 09.01.2024.
7. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned Senior Counsel for the 7th respondent.
8. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 15.02.2023 in SSCR No.4 of 2023, the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner passed Annexure I order dated 26.07.2023, whereby, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 7 th respondent stands closed by giving him a warning and to treat the period of suspension as eligible leave. The reasoning of the 3rd respondent in Annexure I order to take such a decision reads thus;
"ശ്രീ.എസ്.അരുൺകുമാർ സമർപ്പിച്ച ശ്രതിവാദ രശ്തികയുും ബഹു ഹഹക്കാടതിയുടട വിധിന്യായവുും വിരദമായി രരിക്രാധികുകയുും, സൂചന് (7) ടെ വിധിന്യായത്തിൽ ടിയാടന് തിരിടക ക് ാെിയിൽ ശ്രക്വരിപ്പികുന്നത് സുംബന്ധിച്ച് തടസ്സടമാന്നുും ക്രഖടപ്പടുത്തിയതായി കാണടപ്പട്ടിട്ടിെലത്തതാണ്. 18 വർഷക്ത്താളും രബരിമെയിടെ ക്സാരാന്ത്ത് രരാതി രഹിതമായി സ്ടരഷയൽ ഡ്യൂട്ടി ക്ന്ാകിയിരുന്നതാടണന്നുും, കഴിഞ്ഞ 30 വർഷത്തിക്െടെയായി സുതാരയവുും സതയസന്ധവുമായ ക്സവന്മാണ് ക്ദവസവും ക്ബാർഡ്ിൽ ന്ടത്തിയിട്ടുള്ളടതന്നുും, ശ്രീ.അരുൺകുമാെിൻ്്ടെ 20/03/2023 ടെ അക്രക്ഷയിൽ വയക്തമാകുകയുും, തൻ്്ടെ ഔക്ദയാഗിക ീവിതത്തിൽ ഇത്തരടമാരു ആക്രാരണും ആദയമാടണന്നുും, ഭക്തടര ക്വഗതയിൽ ന്ിയശ്രികുന്ന ദയരയങ്ങൾ ദുർവയാഖയാന്ും ടചയ്തത് സമൂഹമാധയമങ്ങളിെൂടട ശ്രചരിപ്പിച്ച് തന്ിടകതിടര 9 SSCR No.27 of 2023 ക്മാരമായ ശ്രതീതി സൃഷ്ടിച്ചതാടണന്നുും, ആയതിന്ാൽ ആക്രാരണങ്ങളിൽ ന്ിന്നുും കുറ്റവിമുക്തന്ാകണടമന്നുും, ടിയാൻ്്ടെ അക്രക്ഷയിൽ വിവരിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതാണ്.
വസ്തുതകൾ രരിക്രാധിച്ചതിൽ ഇകാരയും രരിയാടണന്ന് ക്ബാധയമായതാണ്. ഈ സാഹചരയങ്ങൾ കണകിടെടുത്തുും അച്ചടക ന്ടരടിയ്തക് വിക്ധയമായുും ടിയാടന് തിരുവന്രരുരും ശ്ഗൂപ്പിൽ ഒഴിവുള്ള (മണകാട് ക്ദവസവും ഒഴിടക) വാച്ചർ ൊവണത്തിൽ തിരിടക ശ്രക്വരിപ്പിച്ചുും, ടി വിഷയത്തിൻ്്ടെ ശ്രാധാന്യും കണകിടെടുത്ത് ടി സുംഗതിയിക്േൽ ഒരു ഗാർഹികാക്ന്വഷണും കൂടി ന്ടത്തുന്നത് ഉചിതമാടണന്ന് ക്ബാദ്ധ്യടപ്പട്ടതിന്ടെ അടിസ്ഥാന്ത്തിൽ അക്ന്വഷണും ന്ടത്തുന്നതിന് അഡ്വ:ക്കാെിയക്കാട് അക്രാക്കുമാെിടന് ചുമതെടപ്പടുത്തിയുും ഉത്തരവായി (സൂചന് 8). ഗാർഹികാക്ന്വഷണ െിക്പ്പാർട്ട് െഭിച്ചു (സൂചന് 9).
ശ്രസ്തുത അക്ന്വഷണ െിക്പ്പാർട്ടിടെ ന്ിഗമന്ങ്ങളുടടയുും, കടെത്തെുകളുടടയുും അടിസ്ഥാന്ത്തിൽ ടി വിഷയത്തിൽ ചുവടട വിവരികുും ശ്രകാരും തീർപ്പ് കൽപ്പികുന്നു.
തീർപ്പ് ഭക്ത ന്ങ്ങടള ന്ിയശ്രിക്കെ അവസരങ്ങൾ ഉൊകുക്പാഴുും/അവക്രാട് ഇടരഴകുക്പാഴുും ക്ദവസവും ക്ബാർഡ്ിന് അരകീർത്തി ഉൊകാതിരികാന്ുള്ള ാശ്ഗത ഭാവിയിൽ ഉൊകണടമന്ന മുന്നെിയിപ്പ് ന്ൽകിയുും ടിയാൻ്്ടെ സസ്ടരൻഷൻ കാെും അർഹതടപ്പട്ട അവധിയായി ശ്കമടപ്പടുത്തിയുും ടി വിഷയത്തിൽ തുടർ ന്ടരടി അവസാന്ിപ്പിച്ച് ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു."
9. In Sajeev Sastharam v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 295] this Court held that a 'worshipper', who shows reverence and adoration for Lord Ayyappa, is duty-bound to exercise his right to worship in an accustomed manner and subject to the practice and tradition in Sabarimala. The restrictions imposed at Sabarimala during Maasa Poojas and festival seasons, including Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season, are applicable to all 'worshippers', who are duty-bound to obey such restrictions, in order to ensure a smooth flow of pilgrims in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and darshan for all pilgrims in the queue.
10SSCR No.27 of 2023
10. In Sajeev Sastharam [2022 (7) KHC 295] this Court directed the Guards engaged by the Travancore Devaswom Board and also the Police Officers on duty at Sopanam to regulate the movement of pilgrims through the barricades in an appropriate manner, causing least inconvenience to the pilgrims. To facilitate better crowd management, the third row was ordered to be maintained as 'buffer zone' and the Police Officers were directed to stand on either side of the third row for crowd management. The Police Special Officer at Sannidhanam, who is in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, was directed to keep a constant vigil over crowd management at Pathinettampadi and Sopanam, in order to ensure a smooth flow of pilgrims.
11. The order of this Court dated 15.02.2023 in SSCR No.4 of 2023 is one rendered after adverting to the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, referred to therein at paragraphs 8 to 11 and the law laid down in the decisions referred to therein at paragraphs 13 to 19.
12. As stated in the order dated 15.02.2023 in SSCR No.4 of 2023, on 16.01.2023, when that SSCR came up for consideration, the Division Bench in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, viewed the visuals that appeared in visual media. Thereafter, on 09.02.2023 the Division Bench again 11 SSCR No.27 of 2023 viewed the video clippings that appeared in visual media, in open court, and the Registry was directed to keep a copy of the video clippings in a compact disk.
13. The incident occurred on 14.01.2023. On 16.01.2023, when SSCR No.4 of 2023 came up for consideration, the Division Bench passed a detailed order. In paragraph 4 of that order, the Division Bench found that, as stated in the report of the Special Commissioner, the body language and the facial expression of the Devaswom guard, while shoving the pilgrims in front of the Sreekovil of Sabarimala Sannidhanam, have to be deprecated in the strongest words, and for such misbehavior towards pilgrims he has to be proceeded against, in accordance with law.
14. On 16.01.2023, the Division Bench ordered that an affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, explaining the facts and circumstances and also the action, if any, taken against the 7th respondent for his misbehavior towards pilgrims shall be placed on record by 23.01.2023. In the order dated 15.02.2023 in SSCR No.4 of 2023, the Division Bench found that despite the interference in the matter by this Court, the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have not chosen to preserve the CCTV footage of the incident that occurred on 14.01.2023. The Division Bench deprecated in the 12 SSCR No.27 of 2023 strongest words, the casual approach taken by the Board, in a case involving misbehavior of a Devaswom guard towards pilgrims, which is a serious misconduct on the part of the 7 th respondent.
15. In the order dated 15.02.2023 in SSCR No.4 of 2023, the Division Bench noticed that the pilgrims have a tendency to stand in the rows in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and have darshan of Lord Ayyappa for a long duration. If it is permitted, the queue will get longer and the waiting time of the pilgrims in the queue will increase by hours. The pilgrims who stand in the rows in front of the Sopanam and have darshan for a long duration have to be nudged (pushed gently) to go forward by the Devaswom guards and also police personnel responsible for crowd management, in order to ensure a smooth flow of pilgrims. When the time for closing the Sanctum Sanctorum approaches or in the case of an extremely large crowd, in their anxiety to ensure darshan for all pilgrims in the queue, the movement of pilgrims is made faster by the Devaswom guards and police personnel.
16. In the order dated 15.02.2023 in SSCR No.4 of 2023, the Division Bench noticed that the visuals that appeared in visual media regarding the incident that occurred on the Makaravilakku 13 SSCR No.27 of 2023 day i.e., 14.01.2023, in front of the Sreekovil of Sabarimala Sannidhanam, would show that the 7th respondent shoved (pushed roughly) the pilgrims in the first row in front of the Sopanam, instead of the pilgrims being nudged to go forward. The body language and facial expression of the 7th respondent while shoving the pilgrims in the first row in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam are not that can be expected from a Devaswom guard deployed for regulating the movement of pilgrims at Sabarimala Sannidhanam. The Police Special Officer at Sannidhanam or the Sopanam Officer of the 2nd respondent Board ought to have prevented the 7th respondent from shoving the pilgrims in front of the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sannidhanam.
17. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [(1971) 1 All.E.R. 1148] Lord Denning, M.R. Observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed that, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.
18. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Senior 14 SSCR No.27 of 2023 Counsel for the 7th respondent relied on the reasons stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Board, to justify the conclusion of the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner in Annexure I order dated 26.07.2023.
19. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.
20. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Alex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill [(1978) 1 SCC 405] conclusion is irresistible that the validity of Annexure-I order dated 26.07.2023 of the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner must be judged by the reasons, if any, mentioned therein and not by the reasons stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Board or that in the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent.
21. In such circumstances, this SSCR is disposed of by 15 SSCR No.27 of 2023 setting aside Annexure I order dated 26.07.2023 of the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner and by directing the said respondent to reconsider the matter, taking note of the specific directions contained in the order of this Court dated 15.02.2023 in SSCR No.4 of 2023, and also the statutory provisions and the law laid down in the decisions referred to therein, and take an appropriate decision, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the 7th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The decision taken by the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, after the approval of the 2nd respondent Board, shall be placed before this Court through the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
G. GIRISH, JUDGE vgd