Sacred Sanctuary in Crisis: Supreme Court Halts Kerala Temple Takeover Bid!

In a powerful assertion of religious autonomy and traditional rights, the Supreme Court of India has decisively intervened in a brewing controversy surrounding the administration of a revered Kerala temple. The highest court has not only issued a stern notice to the Malabar Devaswom Board and the Kerala government but has also frozen the contentious appointment of an Executive Officer, sending a clear signal against alleged state overreach in religious institutions.

The legal battle centers on the historic Sri Chettikulangara Bhagavathy Temple in Alappuzha district, an ancient shrine whose administration has, for an astounding 1200 years, been managed by a trust comprising hereditary trustees.

The petitioners, representing these long-standing hereditary trustees, brought their grievances before a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. They vociferously challenged the Malabar Devaswom Board's unilateral decision to appoint an Executive Officer, arguing that this move constitutes an unlawful 'takeover' of the temple's management.

The core of the petitioners' argument rests on the assertion that the Sri Chettikulangara Bhagavathy Temple is a 'denominational institution.' This classification, under Indian law, grants it special protection, limiting the state's power to interfere in its internal administration.

They contended that the Malabar Devaswom Board, in appointing an Executive Officer, had acted illegally and arbitrarily, trampling upon their fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to manage religious affairs.

Furthermore, the petitioners highlighted that the Board's actions, purportedly under Section 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (as adopted by Kerala), were a misapplication of the law.

They emphasized that the Malabar Devaswom Board’s authority does not extend to usurping the traditional management roles of hereditary trustees, whose lineage and customs are intrinsically linked to the temple's identity and spiritual practices.

Responding to the gravity of the allegations, the Supreme Court took immediate and significant action.

It issued notices, demanding explanations from both the Malabar Devaswom Board and the Kerala state government. Crucially, the bench underscored the importance of ensuring that the established rights of hereditary trustees are neither diluted nor undermined. By staying the appointment of the Executive Officer, the Court has provided temporary relief and indicated its commitment to a thorough examination of the delicate balance between state regulatory powers and the autonomy of religious institutions.

This landmark intervention by the Supreme Court sends a powerful message across the nation regarding the protection of religious traditions and the rights of those who have historically safeguarded them.

It underscores the judiciary's role as a guardian of constitutional principles, especially when the sanctity and independence of ancient religious institutions are perceived to be under threat. The future of the Sri Chettikulangara Bhagavathy Temple's administration now hinges on these ongoing legal proceedings, with profound implications for temple governance in Kerala and beyond.