Vishnu Sunil Panthalam v. Kadakkal Temple Advisory Committee

April 3, 2025

Citations: 2025 IO KER 7 : 2025 (4) KLR 111 : 2025 (3) KLT 17 : 2025 KLT OnLine 1718
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: *Anil K. Narendran & Muralee Krishna S., JJ.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.10893 of 2025; 3rd April, 2025
Parties: Vishnu Sunil Panthalam v. Kadakkal Temple Advisory Committee

Hindu Temples – Travancore Devaswom Board – Temple Advisory Committee – Political Activities – Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.

Writ petition seeking to restrain use of Kadakkal Devi Temple premises for political activities – During temple festival, political songs performed and political party flags displayed, hurting devotees’ sentiments.

Held

Temple premises cannot be used for political activities as defined under Section 2(d) of the 1988 Act – Travancore Devaswom Board duty-bound under Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 to ensure traditional rites and ceremonies are performed, and temple sanctity is preserved – Political activities in temples violate Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the 1988 Act, attracting punishment under Section 7 – Board directed to ensure no political activities occur in temples under its management and to account and audit funds collected by Temple Advisory Committee – Temple Advisory Committee to be dissolved and reconstituted due to failure to prevent political activities – Directions issued to ensure compliance with statutory provisions and court orders prohibiting political symbols and activities in temple premises.

For Petitioner: Jomy K. Jose

For Respondents: N.N.Sugunapalan (Sr. Advocate), Sujin S., G. Biju (Sr. Government Pleader), K.S. Arun Kumar, Raji T. Bhaskar & Vijay Sankar V.H.

Videos

Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJiXSgbJwjM
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/reel/1192981362619118
Youtube : https://youtube.com/shorts/YDHOa-RIpSA

Table of Contents

Facts

The petitioner, a devotee of Kadakkal Devi Temple managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He sought to restrain the Temple Advisory Committee and the Board from using the temple premises for political activities and to ensure the temple’s dedication to religious and cultural purposes. On 10.03.2025, during the temple’s annual festival, a singer named Aloshy performed political songs and displayed flags of a political party (DYFI), which hurt devotees’ sentiments. The Temple Advisory Committee approved the performance, and the Board failed to intervene. The petitioner alleged that such actions violated the temple’s sanctity and the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.

Issues

Whether the use of temple premises for political activities violates statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
Whether the Travancore Devaswom Board and Temple Advisory Committee failed in their duty to preserve the temple’s sanctity.
What measures are required to prevent political activities in temples and ensure proper management of temple funds.

Held

The Court held that the performance of political songs and display of political party flags during the temple festival were inappropriate and contrary to the sanctity of the temple. Citing prior decisions (e.g., Sinilkumar E.K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2023 (5) KHC 85]), the Court reiterated that temples are focal points for religious and cultural unity, and politics has no role in their worship, ceremonies, or festivals. The Travancore Devaswom Board is statutorily obligated under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, to ensure traditional rites are performed and temple premises are not misused.

The Court found that the actions violated Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, which prohibit political activities in religious institutions, use of temple funds for political purposes, and allowing ceremonies to be used for political activities. Contraventions are punishable under Section 7 of the Act. The Court directed:

The Travancore Devaswom Board to ensure no political activities, as defined under Section 2(d) of the 1988 Act, occur in temples under its management.
Dissolution and reconstitution of the Temple Advisory Committee due to its failure to prevent political activities.
Proper accounting and auditing of funds collected by the Committee for temple festivals.
Compliance with circulars prohibiting political symbols and activities in temple premises.

The Court also noted a report from the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer recommending disciplinary action against officials for failing to supervise the festival program and allowed time for filing counter-affidavits.

Key Legal Principles

Temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board must adhere to traditional rites and ceremonies, free from political influence.
The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, strictly prohibits political activities in religious institutions.
Funds collected in the name of the deity must be accounted for and audited to prevent misuse.

Disposition

The Court issued directions to the Travancore Devaswom Board to prevent political activities in temples, dissolve the Temple Advisory Committee, and ensure proper financial oversight. The matter was listed for further hearing on 10.04.2025.

DYFI Flags, Financial Accountability, High Court of Kerala, Hindu Temples, Justice Anil K. Narendran, Justice Muralee Krishna S., Kadakkal Devi Temple, Political Activities, Political Songs, Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1988, Temple Advisory Committee, Temple Festival, Temple Sanctity, Travancore Devaswom Board, Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1950, Writ Petition

Law Note: Kerala Micro Distillery Rules, 2025May 17, 2025
The Kerala Micro Distillery Rules, 2025, notified under G.O. (P) No. 87/2025/Taxes and S.R.O. No. 574/2025, were enacted by the Government of Kerala on April 29, 2025, under the authority of Section 29 of the Abkari Act, I of 1077.
Law Note: Interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – Insights from 2025 KER 33579May 17, 2025
Interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), allow a party to a suit to obtain information from their opponent through written questions to support their case, streamline trial proceedings, or reduce litigation costs.
Ground Handling Association v. Union of IndiaMay 16, 2025
Whether CIAL is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022May 15, 2025
The Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022 (amended in 2025) represent a significant step toward integrating India’s legal profession with global legal practices while safeguarding the unique characteristics of the Indian legal system.
Prajida Kumari K. v. State of KeralaMay 13, 2025
Kerala Education Rules (KER), Chapter XIVA, Rule 51A – Preferential Claim for Appointment – Scope and Applicability.
Dr. Manu v. Sree Sankaracharya University of SanskritMay 13, 2025
The petitioner, a Professor and Head of the Department (Hindi) at the Central University of Kerala, sought to set aside orders denying his placement as Professor with effect from 01.06.2009 and requested revision of his placement under the 5th UGC Scheme.
Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate EducationMay 13, 2025
Appointment of Principal – Approval by University – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Negligence Allegation.
Dr. Sangeetha S. v. State of KeralaMay 13, 2025
Inter-University Transfer – Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, Section 68A
Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate EducationMay 13, 2025
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 7 – Public Information Officer – Duty and Liability – Approval of Appointment – Negligence Allegation.
Constitutional Validity of Section 498A – Insights from Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 536May 11, 2025
In Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 498A, IPC, which criminalizes cruelty by husbands or their relatives against married women, particularly in dowry-related cases.