Prerna Gala
Published on: September 22, 2022 at 17:40 IST
In a case titled Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. vs. Bijesh Kumar and Ors., the Kerala High Court’s decision to invalidate the Devaswom’s donation of 5 crore rupees to the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) was appealed by the Supreme Court.
The Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee’s (GDMC) case was brought before the Supreme Court on Monday.
Justices Ajay Rastogi and S. Ravindra Bhat joined Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit on a bench to discuss whether it is improper to give the CMDRF the money received from devotees.
“Pending further consideration, the parties shall maintain status quo”, the order reads.
On October 10, the notice was made returnable.
In December 2020, the Kerala High Court ruled that the GDMC lacked the legal right to transfer money from Devaswom funds to the CMDRF or any other government organisation.
Justices A Hariprasad, Anu Sivaraman, and MR Anitha’s panel overturned an earlier decision that had supported the legitimacy of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board’s donations to the Kerala Chief Minister’s fund.
Based on its interpretation of Sections 27 and 21 of the 1978 Guruvayur Devaswom Act, the Court reached its decision.
The decision was made in response to several petitioners criticizing the Guruvayur Devaswom Board’s choice to establish darshan boxes and other donation collection points for the CMDRF in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.
A review petition was then submitted in opposition to the same.
The High Court’s full bench had previously dismissed the review petitions in May of this year.
The major claim in the review petition was that the court erred in concluding that Section 27(c) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act could not be expanded.
The committee is permitted to incur costs under Section 27(c) for the construction of a facility for the pilgrims’ accommodations, medical relief, water supply, and other sanitary facilities.
They contended that the pilgrims’ proximity to one another didn’t matter and that other people should also be able to benefit from the temple’s offerings.
The Bench rejected this argument and stated that the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee is only allowed to take actions that will facilitate the effective management of Devaswom’s operations and the convenience of visitors to the temple.
According to the Bench’s interpretation of Section 27(c), the Section merely requires that a convenient accommodation be made for worshippers when they come to the temple to offer prayers.
The apex court’s current appeal resulted from this.
According to the appeal, which was submitted through the attorney Jishnu ML, the High Court’s decision was made “despite the substantial information brought on record” regarding the principles and philosophy of Lord Krishna toward easing suffering, misery, and poverty, among other things.
“If the narrow interpretation adopted by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court is accepted various donations made by Temples and other religious organisations to CMDRF of various states and PM Care fund will be questioned. A large number of temples are already contributed crores of rupees to various CMDRF for fighting the Covid-19 pandemic,” it has been contended.
In addition, it is claimed that the High Court erred by equating the petitioner with the temple trustees, even though the verdict goes on to state that the god is the rightful owner of the temple’s assets.
It has been asserted that the petitioner just has control and authority over the Devaswom.
“The contribution has been made in the wake of flood to grant medical relief and sanitary assistance to the worshippers. The word “worshipers” does not mean “Pilgrims” alone. Any person who has reverence in his mind to the Lord Guruvayoorappa is a worshipper.
“During a disaster in the nature of a massive flood, where worshipers of Sree Krishna of Guruvayur were stranded and left homeless, the Committee was well within its powers to give medical aid, sanitary facilities, etc.”
Relevantly, the argument makes the point that the temple’s performance of its obligations under Section 27 of the Act is limited to secular activities that do not exclude other communities.
“It is also a well-known and accepted version that “Hinduism” is a way of life and is a very progressive and inclusive religion. Secularism is one of the main ingredients of the Preamble of the Constitution of India.”
“Any interpretation of a Statute can only be made only in the background of the Constitutional scheme. A restrictive or non-secular interpretation of the statute has to be avoided.”