Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 46 in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 99 in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951
Section 24 in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Ashish Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 31 January, 2018
16. In Muraleedharan M. [2024 (6) KHC SN 20] this
Court issued certain directions in the matter of appointment of non-
hereditary trustees in Devaswoms/Temples, which are controlled
institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, in order to ensure
a fair and transparent mechanism for such appointment, taking into
consideration the requirements of the provisions contained in the
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, till rules are
made for that purpose under the said Act. Paragraph 154 of the
said decision reads thus;
The Manager,Puliyaparamb Higher ... vs State Of Kerala on 27 July, 2022
In Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and others [2021
WP(C) NO. 7676 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:20506
(2) KLT 885], a Division Bench of this Court observed that temple
or its precincts cannot be made a place where political parties
should look forward to give political asylum to their workers. The
Division Bench noticed that ours being a highly politically sensitive
State, hardly any person can be traced, who is completely apolitical
or who may not have his own independent political views. There
may be persons having permanent political ideologies or views
whereas there may be equal number of persons who hold views
according to the issues involved. Perhaps that may be the reason
why Kerala has become a State of political swinging. The Division
Bench made it clear that holding political views or sympathizing
with a political denomination cannot be held a disqualification for
nominating anyone to such a post. On the facts of the case on hand,
the Division Bench held that even assuming that respondents 7 to
9 have some political leaning or rather they are sympathizers of a
political party, that fact will not disentitle them to be considered for
appointment as non-hereditary trustees. There is clear distinction
between sympathizing with a political party and indulging in active
participation in the activities of the party. The taboo under sub-
A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors on 19 July, 2007
In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board
[(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court
explained the diligence and devotion a trustee of a temple should
have. When those are the necessary qualifications required for a
person to be appointed as a non-hereditary trustee, and the danger
of appointing unqualified and untrustworthy persons as trustees,
the Malabar Devaswom Board shall stipulate the eligibility criteria
in consonance with that. Therefore, the Malabar Devaswom Board
was directed to take a decision in that regard before proceeding
with any new appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the
temples under it.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.Muraleedharan vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 29 June, 2016
2. On 04.03.2025, when this writ petition came up for
consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to
address the arguments, taking note of the law laid down by this
Court in Muraleedharan M. and another v. Malabar
Devaswom Board and others [2024 (6) KHC SN 20].