Anthimahakalankavu Vela Committee v. Cochin Devaswom Board, The Devaswom Commissioner, The Assistant Commissioner & The Junior Devaswom Officer (W.P.(C) No. 1444 of 2024)

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 22ND POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO.1444 OF 2024`** ``` PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU VELA COMMITTEE PANGARAPPILLI DESOM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SUNIL KUMAR P.K., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, PARATHIKKAT NAIR HOUSE, PANGARAPPILLI (P.O.), CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680586 2ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU VELA COMMITTEE KURUMALA DESOM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT RAJAN NAMBIATH, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KUNJIKAVU AMMA, NAMBIATH HOUSE, KURUMALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680586 3ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU VELA COMMITTEE THONNURKKARA DESOM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT PRADEEP N., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, KIZHIAPPAT HOUSE, THONNURKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680586 4ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU VELA COMMITTEE CHELAKKARA DESOM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY T.A. KESAVANKUTTY, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. AYYAPPANEZHUTHASSAN, THODUKATTIL HOUSE, ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU, CHELAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680586 5ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU VELA COMMITTEE VENGANELLUR DESOM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT JITHESH K.V., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAKUMAR, KALATH HOUSE, VENGANELLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680586 ``` 2 ## W.P(C)No.1444 of 2024 ``` 6N.PRAKASH AGED 48 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, NAMBIATH HOUSE, THONNURKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680586 ``` ``` BY ADVS. N.M.MADHU C.S.RAJANI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 680001 ``` ``` 2THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001 ``` ``` 3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVILWAMALA GROUP, THIRUVILWAMALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680588 ``` ``` 4THE JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER ANTHIMAHAKALANKAVU, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680586 ``` ``` SRI K.P.SUDHEER - STANDING COUNSEL, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD; S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P(C)No.1444 of 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, namely, Anthimahakalankavu Vela Committee in Anthimahakalankavu, which is a temple under the management of the 1[st] respondent-Cochin Devaswom Board has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 official memorandum dated 18.12.2023 issued by the 2[nd] respondent-Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the 4[th] respondent-Junior Devaswom Officer of Anthimahakalankavu is directed to conduct a ‘prasnam’, to decide the issue regarding the wearing of waistlet by the Oracle. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to continue the age old custom and practice regarding the attire of the Oracle at the time of ‘parayeduppu’. 2. The issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the attire of the oracle (komaram), while going for parayeduppu from the devotees of Anthimahakalankavu, Chelakkara in Thrissur District. According to the petitioner, the parayeduppu is from the houses of devotees in five desoms surrounding the temple and it lasts for 23 days with stipulated days for each desom. The desom committees control the affair. The oracle of the temple with other persons starts at 7:00 a.m and visits each house and collects the paddy and other offerings and it last every day till 11:00 to 11.30 p.m., for the entire 23 days. The oracle wears the red clothing (pattu) and takes the sacred sword with him and when he reaches every house he touches the offering with the sword and the same is taken by 4 ## W.P(C)No.1444 of 2024 the persons accompanying. All of them have to walk the entire day. Now the present oracle got employed in 2015 and thereafter a demand has come from some corners that while going for parayeduppu he has to wear the waistlet. It weighs about 4 kg and it is very difficult to wear it and walk for almost 16 to 17 hours a day, that too continuously for 23 days. By Ext.P3 order dated 02.03.2020, the Special Commissioner decided the issue after getting the reports from all concerned. Now the issue has again cropped up and the 2[nd] respondent has now issued Ext.P5 directing to conduct a 'prasnam'. According to the petitioner it is quite unnecessary, as ‘prasnam’ is conducted when there is doubt regarding the rituals performed within the temple and not for deciding an age-old practice, custom and usage being carried on outside the temple. The issue was once decided by Ext.P3 and there is no reason to reopen the issue. The entire parayeduppu is conducted by the five desoms and they were not heard before taking such decision. The present oracle, the affected party, was also not heard. The petitioners understand that the ‘prasnam’ is scheduled to 13.01.2024. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for the respondents. 4. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board would point out the judgment of this Court dated 21.12.2023 in W.P(C)No.34334 of 2023. 5. Paragraph Nos.4 to 13 of that judgment read thus ; - “4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from 5 W.P(C)No.1444 of 2024 Ext.P5, which is an affidavit of the earlier Oracle, it is evident that the practice of wearing Aramani by the Oracle during the Parayeduppu procession had been ritualistically followed and exemption was given to him for some periods owing to his ill-health. It is stated in Ext.P5 that the Parayeduppu procession started in the year 1975 and ever since the Oracle had been wearing Aramani during the procession. In Ext.P5, the previous Oracle averred that wearing of Aramani is a customary practice and should be continued. The petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P2, which is purported to be an opinion given by the Thantri of the Temple. The Thantri is seen opined that wearing of Aramani by the Oracle during the Parayeduppu is mandatory. Placing reliance on the said documents, the petitioner would contend that wearing of Aramani by the Oracle being an integral part of customary practices connecting to the Temple rites, respondent Nos.1 to 4 do not have any right or authority to exempt the 5[th] respondent from wearing it. The 5[th] respondent being an employee of the Board, it is the obligation of the 1[st] respondent to ensure that he followed the traditional practice of wearing the attire and any violation thereof is dereliction of duty. It is submitted that the 1[st] respondent has the obligation to ensure that the traditional rites and ceremonies in the Temple are performed in accordance with the customary practice in terms of Section 73A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and any violation thereof requires interference by this Court. It is further submitted that Article 25 of the Constitution of India makes it obligatory that the Devaswom Board ensures the freedom of religion of every devotee, which includes observance of the religious rites and practices in the Temple as per the customary practice. When the 1st respondent fails to ensure that the 5[th] respondent is not adorning Aramani, which is an essential part of his customary attire, it is the right of the petitioner to get the reliefs as claimed. 5. In the above respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on **Sinha Ramanuja Jeer v. Ranga Ramanuja Jeer [AIR 1961 SC 1720]** . In that decision, the Apex Court held that although a dispute in relation to religious honours and privileges simplicities 6 W.P(C)No.1444 of 2024 cannot be agitated before a civil court, a suit to establish one's right to an office in a Temple, and to honours and privileges attached to his office ismaintainable. It was also held that if a holder of an office in a Temple is under a legal obligation to discharge the duties attached to the said office, for non-observance of which he may be visited with penalties. The learned counsel accordingly would submit that what shall be the appropriate dress of the Oracle is a matter concerning his legal obligation by virtue of holding of his office and that is a matter liable to be adjudicated by this Court as also a civil court. 6. As against the said contentions, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board would submit that the question raised by the petitioner is regarding a customary practice concerning religious matters in the Temple and there cannot be any interference by this Court by virtue of the provisions of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The learned Standing Counsel in that regard places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court **Srivari Daadaa v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams [MANU/SCOR/44237/2021]** and also a decision of this Court in **Suo motu v. State of Kerala [2022 (3) KLT 53].** 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the dispute is with respect to the religious rites and ceremonies in the Temple, inasmuch as the 5[th] respondent being an employee of the 1[st] respondent, his reluctance to wear the Aramani, which is part of the traditional attire of the Oracle, that becomes a dispute liable to be decided by the court. Referring to the Explanation to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned counsel submitted that the dispute concerning such a religious ceremony having related to the office of the 5[th] respondent, there cannot be a bar under Section 9 of the Code and, for that matter, this Court is obliged to go into the question involved in this Writ Petition. 8. It is true that the 5[th] respondent is an employee under the 1[st] respondent. But no question concerning his right to office is in contest for the dispute to be brought under Section 9 of the Code. The question involved in this Writ Petition cannot, however, be 7 W.P(C)No.1444 of 2024 decided with reference to Section 9 of the Code. Hence, the question is whether the dispute evoked by the petitioner is one coming within the exclusion clause of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. 9. Ext.P5 is one of the documents relied on by the petitioner to contend that such a ceremony has been religiously followed by the Oracle during the Parayeduppu procession. What is asserted in Ext.P5 is that Parayeduppu itself commenced in the year 1975 and ever since the Oracle used to wear Aramani. If origin of such a practice is traced to a period commencing in 1975, the petitioner cannot contend that this has become a custom having its origin lost in antiquity. Be that as it may, the question is whether the petitioner has right to claim a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to ensure that the 5[th] respondent wears Aramani. 10. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the Special Devaswom Commissioner after enquiry into the matter. It is seen that in the enquiry, the Special Devaswom Commissioner gathered views of different sects of persons and such views were not consistent. Therefore, he concluded that there was no such practice and consequently he opined that no direction to the 5[th] respondent to wear Aramani could be issued. 11. From the observations in Ext.P4, it can be seen that there has been divergence of opinion among the devotees and others on the issue. The opinions expressed by Thantri at various times are also not consistent. What emerges therefrom is that whether wearing of Aramani by the Oracle during Parayeduppu procession in the Vela in Anthimahakalankavu Temple is a religious practice or rite remains to be a disputed question. Yet another question arises in that connection is whether it is a religious right and ceremony in the Temple or only a custom unrelated to the Temple rites and ceremonies. The 1[st] respondent, however, issued Ext.P7 directing the 4[th] respondent to find out a resolution to the issue by obtaining opinion in a Devaprasnam. Thus the 1[st] respondent treated the issue as a religious practice concerning the Temple and issued Ext.P7 for finding out a resolution. ## 12. In **Srivari Daadaa [MANU/SCOR/44237/2021]** the Apex 8 W.P(C)No.1444 of 2024 Court held that, whether any ritual or sewa is being performed in a prescribed way or whether there is any deviation from established practice would raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in a writ petition. The procedure of conducting rituals is in the exclusive domain of the Devasthanam and cannot be a matter of adjudication by any court unless it affects secular or civil rights of others. These issues have to be looked into by the pandits or the scholars or the advisors in accordance with the temple customs or the established practice and procedure. These are not the issues for which the Court possesses expertise. So, if the Sevas, Utsavams and Darshanams in the temple are not being done according to the set principles, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the civil court or the competent authority and prove his claims with evidence, and it is for the respondent Devasthanam to defend the same in accordance with law. The said principle was followed and explained by this Court in **Suo motu [2022 (3) KLT 53]** . 13. Here also, the question is concerning a customary practice in connection with the Festival in the Temple. Such a question, the views of Thantries and elders on which is not consistent, cannot be a matter for adjudication by this Court in a Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs claimed in this Writ Petition. As pointed out above, the 1[st] respondent already had issued Ext.P7 directing the 4[th] respondent to find out a resolution. Hence, we are of the view that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be a direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to take necessary steps in terms of Ext.P7 and arrive at a decision on the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months.” 6. Ext.P7 order referred to in the judgment in W.P(C)No.34334 of 2023 is the order dated 14.01.2023 referred to in Ext.P5 official memorandum dated 18.12.2023 in this Writ Petition. In such circumstances, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, taking note of the observations and directions 9 W.P(C)No.1444 of 2024 contained in the judgment dated 21.12.2023 in WP(C) No.34334 of 2023; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court or the competent authority to prove his claims with evidence, in accordance with law, in view of the law laid down in **Suo Motu v. State of Kerala [2022 (3) KLT 53]** . Sd/- **Sd/-** **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** vgd 10 W.P(C)No.1444 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1444/2024`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1PHOTOGRAPHS OF PARAYEDUPPU ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE RITUALS WITHIN THE TEMPLE WHEN THE ORACLE USED TO WEAR THE WAIST LET ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.M5.14623/2019 DATED 02.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT DATED 07.01.2020 OF MR. SANKARA VARRIER ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 18.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER ```