The Kerala High Court in the case of Bijesh Kumar vs State of Kerala the full bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman, Justice Shircy V and Justice MR Anitha orderd that the Devaswom had no power to contribute money to the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) or any other government body.
On Thursday, a full bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed a slew of petitions seeking a rehearing of a 2020 decision that nullified the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee’s (GDMC) donations to the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF)
The review petitions were dismissed by a bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman, Shircy V, and MR Anitha, who noted that there was no evident error in the challenged judgement interpreting the terms of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act (GDA).
The principal argument in the appeal was that the verdict erred in ruling that the scope of Section 27(c) of the GDA could not be enlarged.
Section 27(c) authorises the committee to spend money on medical relief, water supply, and other hygienic provisions for worshippers and pilgrims, as well as the erection of a facility to house them.
They contended that the pilgrims’ proximity to the temple had no bearing, and that the temple’s advantages should be extended to others as well.
The Bench rejected this argument, instead holding that the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee is only authorised to undertake things that are favourable to the efficient management of Devaswom’s operations and the convenience of worshippers visiting the temple.
…what is echoed in the common order of the Full Bench is that the movables, the immovable properties, the money dedicated or endowed in the name of Lord Guruvayurappan shall vest in the idol of Guruvayurappan consecrated in Sree Krishna Temple Guruvayur and the status GDMC is that of a trustee in management of devaswom properties and as such is bound to perform its duties and act as per the provisions of the Act of 1978,”
The Court Observed
The Bench concluded that Section 27(c) only requires that worshippers be provided with a convenient place to stay when they visit the temple to offer prayers.
“Obviously, the said clause cannot be treated as one meant for the benefit of worshippers of lord Guruvayurappan as millions of worshippers are residing all over the country. It would be too far-fetched to give such an interpretation to the said clause. Devotees who repose faith on lord Guruvayurappan are spread all over the country. Therefore, the scope of Section 27(c) cannot be widened as pointed out by the Government and if the contention is accepted, it will be against the principles of precedent in view of the ratio in C.K Rajan‘s case,”
The Court Stated
The challenged judgement was reached in a writ petition submitted by a number of different petitioners.
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, they had criticised the Guruvayur Devaswom Board’s decision to set up darshan boxes and other donation boxes for the CMDRF.
An earlier decision upholding the legitimacy of Guruvayur Devaswom Board payments to the Kerala Chief Minister’s fund was overturned by a full court.
They further stated that Section 27(c) could not be interpreted to cover pilgrims from all around the state.
The current appeal was filed in response to the full bench ruling.
The state was represented by special government pleader Advocate MR Sreelatha.
The respondents were represented by lawyer TK Vipindas, M Abdul Hakkim, R Krishnaraj, and S Sanal Kumar.
Read Judgement
