Padmanabhaswamy Temple

In its recent judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the Shebait rights of the Travancore royal family in the administration of Shree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala.

What was the case?

• The central legal question was whether Utradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma, the younger brother of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the last Ruler of Travancore, could claim to be the “Ruler of Travancore” after the death of the ruler in 1991.
• The court examined this claim within the limited meaning of that term according to the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 to claim ownership, control and management of the ancient Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple.

Padmanabhaswamy Temple

• It is a Hindu temple located in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
• The temple is built in an intricate fusion of the Chera style and the Dravidian style of architecture, featuring high walls, and a 16th-century gopura.
• The principal deity Padmanabhaswamy (Vishnu) is enshrined in the “Anantha Shayana” posture, the eternal yogic sleep on the serpent Adi Shesha.

Background:

• As per the Instrument of Accession signed between the princely states and the Government of India, the administration of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple was vested in trust in the Ruler of Travancore, since 1949.
• In 1971, privy purses to the former royals were abolished through a constitutional amendment stripping their entitlements and privileges.
• In 1991, when the last ruler of Travancore, Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, passed away, his brother Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma took over the temple management.
• This created a furore that he had no legal right to claim the control or management of the temple.
• However, the royal family continued to manage the affairs of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple till the Kerala High Court in 2011 ruled that the family cannot continue to exert its shebait rights.

Judgement:

• The Supreme Court (SC) reversed the 2011 Kerala High Court decision, which had directed the Kerala government to set up a trust to control the management and assets of the temple.
• The High Court (HC) had ruled that the successor to the erstwhile royals could not claim to be in control of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple after the amendment of definition of ‘Ruler’ in Article 366 (22) of the Constitution of India.
• The definition of Ruler was amended by the Twenty Sixth (Constitutional) Amendment Act, 1971, which abolished the privy purses.
• Article 366 (22) reads, “Ruler” means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Twenty Sixth (Constitutional) Amendment Act, 1971, was recognised as the Ruler of an Indian State or was recognised as the successor of such Ruler.

UPSC