Temple Renovation | Devaswom Board's Discretion in Ritual Sanction and Fund Collection : Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court's judgment in Temple Advisory Committee v. Travancore Devaswom Board establishes critical boundaries for state intervention in temple administration under Article 226. The Court balanced the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 with the constitutional right to religious practice, directing expeditious consideration of ritual approvals while preserving the Board's regulatory oversight.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of Thirumadhura Sreekrishna Swamy Temple in Muvattupuzha, sought judicial intervention to compel the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to approve Punapratishta (reconsecration) rites for the temple's renovated structures. The temple, an ancient structure on the Muvattupuzha River, had fallen into disrepair due to prolonged neglect. In 2019, the TAC, with the temple's Thanthri (priest), pledged to complete renovations within five years.

Procedural History

The dispute escalated through the following stages:

• 2019: TAC initiated renovation with Thanthri's approval
• 2025: TAC submitted Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 representations to TDB for:
  • Administrative sanction for Punapratishta rites
  • Sealing of coupons for devotee fund collection
  • Waiver of 10% advance remittance for coupons
• January 2026: TAC filed WP(C) No. 805/2026 under Article 226 seeking mandamus

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought four primary reliefs:

1. Mandamus directing TDB to sanction Punapratishta rites under official supervision
2. Mandamus to consider representations for sealing fund collection coupons
3. Waiver of advance remittance for coupons or alternate direction for TDB to conduct rites
4. Appointment of full-time Pujari and staff for temple operations

The Legal Issue

The Court confronted two interlinked questions:

1. Whether the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 empowers TDB to withhold approval for temple rituals without procedural fairness
2. To what extent can Article 226 intervene in religious administrative matters without infringing the Board's statutory discretion

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The TAC contended that:

• The Punapratishta schedule (17-25 February 2026) was imminent, with Thanthri's Ext.P3 Charthu (ritual estimate) already approved
• TDB's inaction on Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 violated the temple's right to timely religious practice
• The 10% advance remittance requirement for coupons was arbitrary, given the TAC's demonstrated financial preparedness
• Ext.P2 application for staff appointments remained pending, hampering temple operations

For the Respondent

The TDB's counsel submitted:

• The matter could be resolved through directions to consider representations expeditiously
• The Board retained discretion under the 1950 Act to evaluate ritual necessity and financial prudence
• The Ext.P3 Charthu contained inflated estimates (e.g., ₹6 lakh for Pooja items), warranting scrutiny

The Court's Analysis

The Court's reasoning centered on three doctrinal pillars:

1. Judicial Restraint in Religious Matters The Court acknowledged the separation of powers between judiciary and religious administration, noting that Article 226 cannot supplant TDB's statutory authority. However, it emphasized that:

"The Board's discretion is not absolute. It must be exercised in accordance with principles of natural justice and within a reasonable timeframe."

1. Procedural Fairness Mandate The Court held that TDB's consideration of representations must adhere to audi alteram partem (hear the other side). The judgment directed:

• Notice to the petitioner before deciding on Ext.P5 and Ext.P6
• Expeditious disposal of applications, given the ritual's urgency
• Merit-based evaluation of the advance remittance waiver request

1. Financial Prudence vs. Religious Freedom While upholding TDB's authority to scrutinize expenses, the Court cautioned against micro-management of religious practices:

"The Board may question inflated estimates but cannot substitute its judgment for the Thanthri's ritual expertise." The Court directed the TAC to:

• Exercise care in contracting for goods/services
• Maintain auditable accounts for all expenditures

The Verdict

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following holdings:

1. TDB must expeditiously consider Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 representations with notice to the petitioner
2. If TDB approves the TAC's conduct of Punapratishta, it shall pass orders without delay
3. The 10% advance remittance may be waived partially or fully at TDB's discretion
4. Ext.P2 application for staff appointments must be considered on merits
5. The TAC must maintain proper accounts subject to audit

What This Means For Similar Cases

Board's Discretion Is Not Unfettered

Temple advisory committees and devotees can now argue that:

• Statutory bodies like TDB cannot delay ritual approvals indefinitely
• Procedural fairness is mandatory even in religious administrative matters
• Financial scrutiny must be balanced with the right to religious practice

Documentation Is Critical

Practitioners should ensure:

• Ritual estimates (Charthu) are supported by detailed quotations from vendors
• Fund collection requests include audit-ready financial plans
• Staff appointment applications demonstrate temple operational needs

Judicial Intervention Threshold

Courts are likely to intervene when:

• Statutory bodies fail to act within reasonable timelines
• Discretionary powers are exercised arbitrarily or without notice
• Religious practices are impeded without justifiable cause