Download Written Arguments Sabrimala and more Lecture notes Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity!
"
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (CIVIL) No. 11295 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF: SRI MARTHANDA VARMA & ANR. (^) PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY ADVOCATE J. SAl DEEPAK ON BEHALF OF THE TANTRI^ ·^ OF^ THE PADMANABHASWAMV TEMPLE (INTERVENOR), PEOPLE FOR (^) DHARMA (INTERVENOR} AND M.V.SOUNDARARAJAN (INTERVENOR}
[FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE]
ADVOCATE FOR PEOPLE FOR DHARMA AND THE TANTRI: SUVIDUTT M.S. ADVOCATERAMASUBRAMANIAN FOR M.V. SOUNDARARAJAN:
(} FILED^ ON:^ 24.04.
INDEX
S.NO PARTICULARS
- Written Submissions by Advocate J. Sai Deepak
..........tiL,",,-,"-'"~-
PAGES
in the Sabarimala case. Further, the Trust has filed PILs before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court with respect to causes relating to Temples which fall under the Travancore Devaswom Board. That apart, the Trust comprises individuals who are devotees of Lord Padmanabhaswamy, the Presiding Deity of the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple ("The Temple") which is the subject ~f the Petition. Consequently, the Second Intervenor has the necessary locus to intervene and assist the Hon'ble Court in the Petition.
- The Third Intervenor is a recipient of 'Best Teacher Award' from the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 1981. The said Intervenor is also a Hereditary Trustee cum Archaka of the Shri Chilkur Balaji Temple in Hyderabad and has introduced reforms in the temple like no Hundi, no VIP darshan with a single Queue for all devotees, no ticket system, no Arjitha Sevas and no Cash offerings. This system of worship has received tremendous support among devotees across the world. The Third Intervenor has also been active in fighting corruption, politicization and commercialization of the Temple System across the country. He is the convenor of the Temples Protection Movement, Vice President of the Andhra Pradesh Archaka Samakhya and Editor of VAK Journal. He has contributed to the amendments made to Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act through Act 33 of 2007. He has assisted the Justice Rama Jois Committee on the amendments to the Endowments Act in Karnataka. He is also engaged as a Special Invitee Member of the Andhra Pradesh Dharmika
,. .. 1. .,. I
Parishad. As a devout Vaishnavite and believer of Lord Padmanabhaswamy, the Third Intervenor has the necessary locus to intervene and assist this Hon'ble Court in the Petition.
- In support of the locus of the Intervenors, reliance is placed on Paragraph 62 of the judgement of this Hon'ble Court in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India (1981) 1SCC 246. The said judgement starts at Page 650 of Part 3 of JSD 2 and Paragraph 62 is at Page 685. Further, since the State Government of Kerala did not object to the locus of non-believing Intervenors who sought entry into the Sabarimala Temple, surely it cannot object to the locus of or material placed by the Intervenors in this case whose object of worship is Sri Padmanabhaswamy and who are stakeholders to His Temple.
A. HISTORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RULER OF TRAVANCORE AND THE SHRI PADMANABHASWAMY TEMPLE PRIOR TO 1750, AND BETWEEN 1750 AND 2019
- In order to understanel the infirmities in the Impugned Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated January 31, 2011, it is imperative to understand the origins of the Temple and the centrality of the Travancore Royal Family, in particular the Ruler, to the history and religious practices of the Temple. To establish the history of the said relationship even before the dedication of the Travancore State by the
... ... JIL.. ""'
I ,
Bhagavan Parashurama (Bhargava) made a wooden idol and covered it with gold. Then He consecrated the murti and commenced pujas. Shloka 5- "Kshetra tantra dadauraamah taranaalayavaasine" Bhagavan Parashuramabestowed the Namboodiris from the Tarananalloor family with right to perform Tantram at the Temple. Shloka 6- "Vedaadhyayanaheenaanaam sameepagraamavaasinaam, Kshetrakaaryamdadau tatra kshetrarakshantu bhaargavah" Bhagavan Parashurama allotted the duty of managing the Temple rituals and protecting its practices to those brahmins from a nearby village, who did not have the right of vedaadhyayana. These are the Yogattilpottimaar brahmins, who are part of Ettarayogam and form the council to supervise the rituals of the Temple. Sloka 7-
"poojaartham kalpayaamaasa sabhaagraama nivaasinaah"
He ordained that the residents of Sabhagrama(a village in the modern day Kasargod district) shall do pujas to the Deity. Even today, the nambi priests are selected only from those families which were originally from that village.
v: Shlokas 10 and 11-
"nrsimhamoole dhanako~hajaalam praakaaramadhyeshatakoti ratnam
, I ..
niveshyaraamo bhagavaan mahaatmaa aadityabhoopaalam
idambabhaase II
tvamevataavat paripaalayasvayam shree padmanabhaalayam etamanvaham poojyashchamaanyo bhuvanekhilaanaam vikhyaatanaama
kulashekarastvam II"
Bhagavan Parashurama placed the treasury at the Narasimha corner (Vault B) and huge numbers of gemstones in the Temple praakaaras (reference to the other vaults). Thereafter, Lord Paras~rama, that great soul who was akin to whirlwind, instructed Maharaja Aditya as follows: "You shall guard and nourish this Temple of SreePadmanabha by yourself everyday (which is the reason why the Ruler is expected to visit the Temple everyday). You shall be revered in all worlds as Kulashekhara" It is evident from the text of Kerala Mahatmyam that the Ruler is integral to the history of the Temple and has specific duties assigned to it right from the inception of the Temple, which he is expected to perform without exception. Clearly, the Travancore Family enjoys rights under Article 25(1) in so far as their rights and duties in relation to the Temple are concerned.
""'. .. t ..
Mahatmyam as the applicable scripture as well as the unbroken relationship between the Travancore Royal Family and the Padmanabhaswamy Temple.
iv. The Travancore State Manual- Published in 1906 and authored by V. Nagam Aiya, Dewan Peishcar of Travancore, this document too establishes the reliability of the Kerala Mahatmyam as the scripture for the Temple. This document starts at Page 100A of JSD 2. The relevant portions are at Pages 100, 104, 107 and 108.
v. Devaswoms in Travancore- This document has been placed on record at Pages 67-98 of JSD 1. Published in 1949, this document captures the entire history of Devaswoms in Travancore and its relationship to the Ruler. Pages 70- capture the relationship between the Travancore State and the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple and are consistent with the literature cited herein above. Pages 73-76 capture the relationship between the Travancore State and other Devaswoms. The three categories of Devaswoms are captured on Page 77 and the manner of their administration is captured from Page 78 onwards. This document effectively establishes that the treatment of the relationship between the Ruler and the Padmanabhaswamy Temple has been different and special compared to the relationship between the Ruler and other Devaswoms.
- Each of the above-cited documents go on to establish the existence of the relationship of Padmanabha Dasa between the Ruler of Travancore and the Deity. These documents also convey the nuance that unlike the Kings of yore acting as patrons of Temples, in the case of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple, the Presiding Deity is the tutelary Deity of the Travancore Family owing to the fact that the Family traces its lineage to Maharaja Aditya on whom Bhagavan Parashurama is believed to have bestowed the duty to take care of the Temple and to guard it. Consequently, the descendants of Maharaja Aditya cannot be divested of this duty through any act of the State given that it would amount to altering the history of the Temple and its character. Simply stated, the role played by the Travancore Family, as descendants of Maharaja Aditya, is essential and integral to the Temple's very founding and hence its identity. This role is, therefore, protected by Article 25(1) and Article 26(b) of the Constitution. Since the Parashurama Padhati is practiced only by a handful ·Temples in the world and it has a distinct identity of its own, the people who have been given the sole right to perform the rituals of the Temple and the people who are integrally connected to the Temple are also protected by rights under Article 29(1) to protect the culture of the Temple. Further, owing to Section 7 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the denominational identity of the Temple and its religious character are protected under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act. Any denial of the role of the Travancore Family by any arm of the State through a
q
, , I
ii. That the Ruler ~xercised exclusive control and supervision with respect to both, without any interference from the Council of Ministers or the Legislative Assembly. Clearly, the special and integral relationship between the Travancore Family and the Temple is continued through Article 4(a) of the Interim Constitution. The said Interim Constitution was promulgated in March 1948 after August 1947 when the Rulers of the States of Travancore and Cochin executed separate Instruments of Accession with the Dominion of India.
- Subsequently, on May 29, 1949, a Covenant was entered into between the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin on the one hand, and the Government of India on the other, for the formation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin. This Covenant was signed by the Maharaja of Travancore, the Maharaja of Cochin, and Mr. Vapal Pangunni Menon, Advisor to the Government of India. The Covenant was published in the Gazette Extraordinary on July 1, 1949. This document is at Pages 13-19 of JSD 1. Article VIII of the said Covenant captures the relationship between (a) the Ruler of Travancore (Rajpramukh) and the Padmanabhaswamy Temple, (b) the Rajpramukh and the Travancore Devaswom B~ard, (c) the Ruler of Cochin and the Cochin Devasom Board, and (d) the Ruler of Cochin and the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple and the Pazayannore Bhagavathy Temple. What is of consequence to the instant Petition are the following points:
f I
". I
i. In stark contrast to Articles IV(2) and XIV of the Covenant, Article VIII is not limited to the lifetime of the Ruler of Travancore who executed the Covenant;
ii. The special and integral relationship between the Ruler of Travancore and the Padmanabhaswamy Temple, which was recognized in Article 4(a) the Travancore Interim Constitution of 1948 is carried forward in Article VIII(b) of the Covenant, and again a distinction is struck between the relationship of the Ruler with the Temple on the one hand, and with other Temples which fall under the Travancore Devaswom Board on the other;
iii. Article VIII is a stand-alone recognition of the relationship between the Ruler of Travancore and the Temple, which is unaffected by other provisions of the Covenant. It is not part of the Privy Purse arrangement under Article XIV of the Covenant, nor is it part of the personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler as referred to in Article XVII of the Covenant. Therefore, any development or operation of law which affects any other provision of the Covenant still does not affect Article VIII;
iv. The relationship between the Travancore Family and the Deity represents an impartible and inalienable property which has been expressly and specially protected through a dedicated provision of the Covenant, namely Article VIII, as opposed to merely listing it as yet another private property in
-~ ... - I
tY
vi. The Instrument :of Accession entered into by the Rajpramukh of the United State of Travancore Cochin with the Government of India on July 14, 1949, clearly shows that the Ruler of Travancore, Shri Rama Varma, had signed the Instrument as the PadmanabhaDasa. The said document was placed on record by Mr. J. Sai Deepak during his oral submissions on March 27, 2019. Each of the above shows that the conduct of the Ruler of Travancore in so far as the Temple is concerned, has been consistent and the relationship between the Ruler/Family and the Temple remained unchanged even until the execution of the Instrument of Accession with the United State of Travancore Cochin in July 1949.
- The subsequent treatment of the Covenant by the Assembly of the United State of Travancore Cochin, especially of Article VIII of the Covenant, also abundantly establishes the legally valid and binding nature of the Covenant under the Indian Constitution. In this regard, the proceedings of the United State of Travancore and Cochin Legislative Assembly dated August 6, 1949 were placed on record on March 27, 2019 by Mr. J. Sai Deepak. On Internal Page No. 29 (page number on top right-hand corner), Question No. 24 of Sri K.P.Nilakanta Pillai, which relates to the Constitution of the Travancore- Cochin Union, and the response of Sri T.K.Narayana Pillai, have been captured. It becomes evident from the said exchange that the Covenant entered into by the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin with the concurrence and guarantee
,, ,. I .. ,
of the Government of India and the Ordinances issued thereunder constitute the Constitution of the Travancore- Cochin Union.
- In addition to this, on March 27, 2019, Mr. J. Sai Deepak also placed on record the proceedings of the of the United State of Travancore and Cochin Legislative Assembly dated October 6, 1949. On Internal Pages 106-108 of the said document, there is a clear discussion on (b) the obligation of the United State to contribute a sum of INR 51 Lakhs to the Devaswom Fund and the Pandaravaka Fund, and (b) the guaranteeing of such obligation under Article VIII of the Covenant. There is also a clear discussion of treating this obligation as a charge created on the consolidated fund of the Indian Union, which led to the creation of Article 290A, to ensure that it does not violate any canon o( secularism, and also to honour the Union's obligations under Article VIII of the Covenant. In order to complete the history of this obligation, the Devaswom Proclamation dated April 12, 1922 issued by the then. Ruler Sri PadmanabhaDasa Rama Varma has been placed on record at Pages 64-66 of JSD 1. A perusal of this document shows the following: i. That since the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple was already within the exclusive control of the Ruler, the said Temple was not taken over as part of the 1922 Proclamation;
....,.. ,.. ,l
(} It was this obligation that was assumed by the Indian Union as part of Article VIII of the Covenant, among other things. This establishes beyond doubt that there is no basis to assume that either the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple or any other Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board are State-funded. In fact, they are not and they are merely receiving a consolidated amount as annuities from the vast tracts of land which were taken over from them. Therefore, the amounts being paid to the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple and the TDB are charges created on the Consolidated Fund, and not State largesse being paid from the taxpayer's money.
- The fact that none of the Temples under the TDB are State- funded is further borne out from the 2003 notification by the Revenue (Devaswoms) Department of the Government of Kerala, which has been placed on record at Page 306 of JSD
- The said document clearly shows that the Devasom Fund and the Sree Pandaravaka Fund was enhanced in 2003 from INR 46.5 Lakhs to INR 100 Lakhs, out of which INR 80 Lakhs was earmarked for the Travancore Devaswom Board and INR 20 Lakhs was earmarked for the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple. This fact is again corroborated by the RTI Response issued by the Government of Kerala dated October 19, 2017 at Page 307 of JSD 1. In the said response, it has also been clarified that the Government has not yet paid the annuity of INR 58,500 which is due to the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple as per Section 6(1) of the Sri Pandaravaka Lands
,. I
rs
(Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971 (the said Act is at Pages 293-303 of JSD 1). At Page 308 of JSD 1, in the RTI Response dated October 17, 2017 issued by the then Executive Officer of the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple to the Revenue (Devaswoms) Department of Kerala, it has been clearly stated that the annuity of INR 58,500 under the 1971 Act had not yet been paid for 2016-17 and 2017-18 as on date of the RTI Response.
- On March 27, 2019, Mr. J. Sai Deepak also placed on record Chapter III of the Hindu Religious Institutions Bill which was published on March 4, 1950 through a Gazette Extraordinary. The said Chapter of the Bill is expressly dedicated to the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and the draft of Sections 18-
are manifestly a direct, consequence of the Union's
guarantees and obligations under Article VIII of the Covenant. This ultimately led to Sections 18-23 of the of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1950 ("the TCHRI Act, 1950") which are dedicated to the Padmanabhaswamy Temple. Therefore, the nexus between the said provisions of the Act and Article VIII of the Covenant is manifest and " irrefutable. Importantly, despite amendments being effected to the TCHRI Act in 1958, 1974, 1976, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1999 and 2007, no amendment has been effected to Sections 18-23 of the Act notwithstanding any amendment to the Constitution, including the 26th Amendment in 1971 which abolished Privy Purses, repealed Articles 291 and 362, ·introduced Article 363A and amended
