Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple is amongst the richest Hindu temples in the world. It is situated in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. On July 13, 2020, in Marthanda Varma v State of Kerala, the Supreme Court granted the royal family of Travancore the rights to manage the property of the deity. It held that the shebait rights, as per the customary law, rest with the royal family even after the demise of the last ruler. Shebait rights refer to the rights concerning the management of financial affairs of the deity.
About the case
The case revolved around the issue of whether Utradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma could claim to be the ‘ruler’ of the state of Travancore. Marthanda Varma was the younger brother of the last ruler of Travancore, Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma. The last ruler of Travancore had died in 1991. The court examined this claim under the light of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.
Timeline of the events:-
- Before 1947
Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards controlled all the temples in the princely states before signing of the instrument of accession by the states.
- 1949
The Indian Government and the princely states signed the instrument of accession. Therefore, the administration of the temple was “vested in trust” in the ruler of Travancore.
- 1991
The ruler of Travancore, Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, passed away. The younger brother of the late ruler took over the management of the temple. He continued to look after the management of the temple for several coming years. There was no challenge to the previously existing legal position that the temple “vested in trust in the ruler of Travancore”. He managed the affairs of the temple with the help of an executive officer.
- 2007
Marthanda Varma claimed that the riches of the temple belonged to the royal family. To ensure that the temple property does not get ‘diverted by the royals’, various suits objecting the claim were filed.The lower court ordered an injunction against the opening of the vaults. Marthanda Verma approached the High Court against the decision of the lower court.
- 2009
T.P. Sunderrajan, a former IPS officer, filed a PIL before Kerala High Court seeking transfer of control of temple from the royal family to state government. He was a licensee of premises belonging to the temple. The management of the temple had taken steps against him for eviction from the premises.
Sunderrajan had filed the petition seeking the writ of quo warranto against the then executive officer of the temple. He claimed that Marthanda Varma had appointed the executive officer without any authority.
The Accession Agreement signed between the kings of Travancore and the Government of India in 1949 was the basis of the PIL filed by Sunderrajan.
According to the Accession Agreement though, the administration of the temple vested with the “ruler of Travancore”.Article VII of the Agreement stated that an executive officer would conduct the affairs of the temple. His conduct would be subject to the supervision and guidance of the ruler of Travancore.
- 2011
On January 31, 2011, the Kerala High Court ordered the state government to take over the temple’s control, restrained executive officer and Maharaja of the Royal family against opening any of Kallaras (vaults). It ruled that the demise of the last ruler marked the end of the rights held by the royal family. The High Court ruled that there was no ‘ruler of Travancore’ as the title was not a ‘status that one could acquire through succession’. It hence ruled that Marthanda Verma could not step into the shoes of the erstwhile ‘king’.
On May 2, 2011, an appeal of Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma, brother of the last ruler, came up for hearing before the Supreme Court, which granted interim stay on the high court directives. It also directed conducting a detailed inventory of the articles/valuables/ornaments in Kallaras (vaults) and appointed a team of observers.
On July 8, 2011, the Supreme Court ordered that opening of kallara ‘A’ and ‘B’ is to be kept in abeyance till further orders.
On July 21, 2011, SC considered state’s response, directed setting up of an Expert Committee to advise on inventory, conservation and security. It said the panel would examine and give an opinion whether it is necessary to open Kallara ‘B’.
On September 22, 2011, SC examined the interim report of the Expert Committee, issues directions. It said issues about the opening of Kallara B should be regarded after considerable progress has been made concerning the registration, categorisation, protection, security, restoration, maintenance and storage of the other Kallaras’ contents.
- 2012
On August 23, 2012, the court appointed Senior Advocate Gopal Subramaniam as an Amicus Curiae.
- 2013
On December 6, 2013, Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma passed away, his legal heirs later substituted him in SC.
- 2014
On April 15, 2014, Amicus Curiae submitted his report.
On April 24, 2014, the court appointed a four-member Administrative Committee headed by the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, to manage the temple, by way of an interim order.
During Aug-Sep, 2014, Gopal Subramaniam wrote to SC opting out as amicus curiae. Later, he withdrew his resignation and continued to assist the SC.
In November 2014, Royal family questioned Amicus Curiae Gopal Subramaniam’s report, files objections before SC.
On November 27, 2014, SC accepted some of the recommendations made by the Amicus Curiae.
- 2017
The issue of the unopened vault which was said to have ‘mystical energy’ and hence was ‘not be opened’ was raised in the Supreme Court, with the amicus curiae dismissing such claims as ‘useless suspicion generated about’ its content.
On July 4, 2017, SC appointed Justice K.S.P. Radhakrishnan as Chairman of the Selection Committee for the Sreekovil (sanctum sanctorum) and other allied works. The court stated that it would decide on the matter of opening the vault later. It said that it would be done after a final decision about the administration of the temple would be taken.
In July 2017, SC said it would examine claims that one of the vaults of the temple contains extraordinary treasure with “mystical” energy, passes a slew of directions including on the security of the riches, auditing of accounts and repair of the deity.
- 2019
During January-April, 2019, the cases are posted before the bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra for final hearing.
On April 10, 2019, SC reserves verdict on pleas challenging January 31, 2011 judgement of the Kerala HC in the matter.
On July 13, 2020, the Supreme Court upheld Travancore royal family privilege in temple administration [2020 SCC OnLine SC 569]. The court found out that the death of the Travancore ruler who signed the Covenant did not impact the former royal family’s shebait-ship (management).
The 300-page decision also notes that the existing administration committee, led by the district judge, must remain until the new one is created. And the appointed committee, all of which will be Hindu, must determine whether to take inventory of the second vault or vault B of the temple, which is claimed to contain valuable treasures.
.