SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS. on 22 September 2021

ORDER

1. In Miscellaneous Application Nos.2280-2281 of 2020, tworeports each of the Administrative and Advisory Committees of SreePadmanabha Swamy Temple dated 10.12.2020 and 31.8.2021 have beenfiled.

A) The Administrative Committee Report dated 10.12.2020 hasstated:- “I may report that presently, the Temple is facing financialcrisis, resulting from the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic andthe subsequent lockdown. In compliance with the guidelines / healthadvisories of the Central and the State Governments, the entry ofdevotees to the Temple was prohibited during the period from24.03.2020 to 25.08.2020. Anyhow, without any hindrance, theroutine rituals and poojas were performed during the said period.There had been no flow of income to the Temple during the periodof lockdown, but, had to spend huge amounts for meeting theexpenditure for performing routine rituals, salary, wages, pension,family pension etc. and other recurring expenses. The amounts

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

accrued till the declaration of lockdown have almost been drainedout. From 26.08.2020, the entry of devotees was resumed withrestrictions observing COVID protocol. However, as a result ofthe situation prevailing, the income of the temple is meagre whichis not even enough to meet the expenditure towards salary, wages,pension, family pension and other routine expenses. Consideringthe financial position of the Temple, in the joint meeting held on11.10.2020, it was resolved to address the Government to granttime to return the amounts expended by the State Government.

The directions contained in Para 116 (e) can be compliedwith only when the situation attains normalcy.

Special Audit

In Paragraph 116 (g) of the Judgment it was directed thatthe Committees:- “(g) Shall order audit for the last 25 years as suggestedby the learned Amicus Curiae. The audit shall be conductedby a firm of reputed Chartered Accountants. The AdvisoryCommittee shall also consider what further steps need to betaken for the preservation of the Temple properties, bothmovable and immovable.”

After deliberations in the Joint Meeting, as per the resolutiondated 27.10.2020, M/s Sridhar & Co. Chartered Accountants,Thiruvananthapuram, has been appointed as the Auditor to conductspecial audit in respect of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, SreePadmanabha Swamy Temple Trust and other allied Trusts, for aperiod of 25 years, as suggested by the learned Amicus Curiae inhis report dated 15.04.2014, from the financial year 1989-90 to2013-14.”

B) In Administrative Committee Report dated 31.08.2021, it hasbeen stated :

B) In Administrative Committee Report dated 31.08.2021, it hasbeen stated :

“3. The Special Audit for 25 years as directed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court has commenced in respect of the accounts of theTemple. As per Paragraph 116(g) of the judgement, the Hon’bleSupreme Court has directed to conduct ‘audit for 25 years assuggested by the learned Amicus Curiae’. Whereas, the learnedAmicus Curiae has suggested (in Paragraph 65 of his report dated 15.4.2014) for the audit of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trustand allied trusts, along with the audit of the Temple. Thus, theauditor was entrusted to conduct special audit of the accounts ofthe Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust and allied Trusts, aswell for a period of 25 years. But the Auditor has now informedthat though he has served a letter, the said Trust has not providedthe accounts of the Trust to the Audit team, so far. In thiscircumstance, I may report the following facts.

4. The objects of the Trust, as per its Registered Deed No.66/1965 dated 12.08.1965 are as follows:

(1) Routine and major items of repairs in and to the Temple,including the compound walls.

(2) Routine and major item of repairs to Vahanam, ornamentsand pooja vessels used in the Temple.

(3) Payment of Vilavasi in respect of articles which used to bepaid for by the former Government of Travancore State andthe cost in respect of articles whose source ofsupply is specifiedas Palace Panivagai, Kandukrishy and Nithyachilavu in thepathivoos.

(4) Annual repairs to vessels other than pooja vessels used inthe Temple.

(5) Manufacture or purchase and supply of new vessels foruse in the Temple.

(6) Performance of Bhagyasooktha japom and viseshal neijapom in the temple.

(7) Performance of Chathayam Thiruveli and cost of othermiscellaneous items of expenses.

(8) Performance of Ganapathy homam in the Temple.Performance of Paradesa paksha japam for 41 days in July/August in each year in the Temple.

(9) Performance as hitherto fore of Murajapom andLakshadeepam in the Temple once in six years, the first ofwhich is to be performed under this instrument in the year1971.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(10) Such capital items of work as may be necessary fromtime to time to and in the Temple including the compound walls.

5. Thereafter, few more objects were also added by executing asupplemental indenture of Trust on 10-01-1970.

i. Payment of Dakshina to Tharanalloor Namboothiripad inconnection with Bhadradeepom ceremonies in SreePadmanabha Swamy Temple.

ii. (a) Supplying Devan kadalipazham in Sree PadmanabhaSwamy Temple on Ekadasi days.

(b) Supplying milk for Abhishekam daily in Sree PadmanabhaSwamy Temple.

iii. Performance of Paradesa Paksha Sahasranama Japom forten days during utsavam festival;

iv. Expenditure on salary of the Executive Officer and staff.

6. From these objects of the said Trust, it is evident that the Trustwas created only for the benefit of the Temple and the Temple isits sole beneficiary. The founder of the Trust Sri.Rama VarmaMaharaja of Travancore had transferred to this Trust various itemsof landed properties which are surrounding the Temple, and thetransfer was made solely for the benefit of the Temple. As perthe Trust deed, the income from the Trust has to be used only forthe said objects viz., the benefit of the Temple. The present trusteesof the said Trust are members of the erstwhile Travancore royalfamily and persons connected to them.

7. In view of the above facts, the learned Amicus Curiae hasopined in his report (page 375, Volume I, April 2014) that theutilisation of income of the Trust for the Temple has not beenadequately established and thus he recommended for auditing theaccounts of the Trust, during the special audit.

*** *** ***

10. I may most humbly report that, despite the earnest efforts ofthe Temple to improve its income and to cut short its expenditureeven by drastically reducing the daily wage employment, it is notable to fill the income and expenditure gap. So far, the crisis ismanaged by utilizing the funds available in various Fixed Deposits and Savings Bank accounts, but the said amount will completelybe depleted, if the Temple pays of the salary of the next twomonths and the amount due towards gratuity and other debts. It issubmitted that the Temple is facing an unprecedented crisis, whichcan only be tide over with the aid of the Trust and the Government.”

2. Miscellaneous Application No.1465 of 2021 has been filed bySree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust (‘SPSTT’, for short). In theapplication, it is asserted :

“2. The Applicant Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust is anindependent Trust created in the year 1965 (“SPSTT”) by thethen “Ruler of Travancore” Sree Chithira Thirunal Bala RamaVarma for the perpetual continuation of the devotional offeringsto the Temple, other specified religious rites and certain functionsintegral to his family traditions, which earlier were done by theerstwhile royal family. The Temple and SPSTT, it is submitted,are two separate and distinct entities. The primary source of incomeof SPSTT is the rentals from some buildings, which are in itsownership and the same is spent towards maintenance and upkeepof the said buildings, minor administrative expenses, the offeringsfor the Temple and in accordance with its objects. Most of thebuildings owned by the Applicant are old and has great historicalimportance.

*** *** ***

5. In 1965, the Applicant herein was created by Sri ChithiraThirunal Bala Rama Varma, the erstwhile Ruler of State ofTravancore by an indenture of settlement dated 25.06.1965 forthe purpose of carry out specific rituals/ functions which werecontinued by him in the Temple after the loss of State. The initialcorpus was Four percent Madras State Development Loan, 1971of the face value of Rs.10,000/-, transferred by the Founder.Subsequently, the Ruler kept adding some of his private immovableproperties and buildings to SPSTT. SPSTT was created to, amongothers, ensure that the special offerings and functions to theTemple, done as a part of the erstwhile royal family’s devotion,could be conducted smoothly and without any departure from theage old customs and traditions. The objectives, however, alsoincluded the family ritual of Chathayam Thiruveli, which is A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

conducted to commemorate the anniversary of the eldest nephewof the Founding Trustee, who passed away at the age of 6 years.

9. It is submitted that SPSTT was not formed with an object ofmaking payments in cash for the day-to-day management of theTemple. As stated above, SPSTT was formed to ensure thecontinuance of the offerings to the Temple made by the erstwhileroyal family. At the cost of repetition, it is respectfully submittedthat the object of SPSTT was not to run the Temple but to providesome financial assistance for certain poojas and vazhipadoos, inline with its objects. This is evident from the fact that the paymentmade to the Temple by SPSTT was fixed, taking into account itslimited resources, and did not cover the entire expenses incurredtowards performance of a Pooja or offering. Further, the incomeof SPSTT crippled over time on its account of buildings beingtransferred by the Trustees based on the requirements of theTemple. For instance, more than two buildings were transferredto house the security of the Temple. These transfers left theTemple with very limited revenue earning properties. Needless tostate, the expenses of the Temple kept increasing over time.”

2.1 The report of the learned Amicus Curiae is dealt with as under:- “14. The Ld. Amicus Curiae in its report dated 15.04.2014 madeseveral recommendations including conduct of a special audit ofthe Temple. In particular, the report recommended that:

“65. It is submitted that a special audit needs to be conductedby Shri Vinod Rai, former Comptroller and Auditor General ofIndia. It is further submitted that a team of auditors appointedby him shall undertake complete audit in respect of the SreePadmanabhaswamy Temple for the last 25 years. It is alsosubmitted that he be empowered to take into his custody andseal all the documents of the Trust properties forthwith. Thesaid audit must not only cover the Sree PadmanabhaswamyTemple, but also the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trustand other allied trusts ……”

15. Pursuant to the said Report, this Hon’ble Court vide its orderdated 24.04.2014, inter alia, directed as under:

“A special audit of the Temple and its properties shall beconducted as early as may be possible, preferably by Shri Vinod

Rai, former Comptroller and Auditor General of India. He willbe at liberty to take services/assistance of any other person/persons in completion of this task.”

It is submitted that though recommended by the Ld.Amicus Curiae, this Hon’ble Court, had not directed the auditof the Applicant or other Trusts. It is submitted that theproperties of the Applicant do not form a part of the propertiesof the Temple. This fact was intimated by the Applicant to theSpecial Audit authorities vide its letter dated 20.09.2014.”

*** *** ***

17. Thereafter, when the petition was listed on 05.05.2015, thisHon’ble Court took note of the submissions of the Ld. Counselfor the Applicant as under:- “…. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned counsel appearing for theTrust submits that although the special audit for the period01.04.2008 to 01.04.2014 has already been conducted and areport submitted to this Court, the trust would have no difficultyin co-operating with Mr. Rai in undertaking scrutiny of the saidaudit report and in conducting a fresh audit, if in his opiniondoing so is necessary. There could in that case be an audit forthe entire period commencing from 01.04.2008 to 01.04.2014.Mr. Datar further submits that Mr. Rai may be requested toraise whatever queries are considered relevant for completionof the audit so that the trust answers the same suitably…

Further, this Hon’ble Court directed the copy of the auditreport filed on behalf of SPSTT (of M/s Manohar Chowdhary)to Mr. Vinod Rai for his perusal and evaluation and, further,directed that in case Mr. Rai upon consideration of the auditalready conducted, is one of the opinion that a fresh/specialaudit needs to be conducted for the period 01.04.2008 onwards,he shall be free to undertake that exercise. SPSTT was alsodirected to make available all such information and record asmay be necessary for completion of that exercise. Further, itwas observed that Mr. Rai will also do well to raise any querythat may be relevant for completion of the audit to enable thetrust to answer them. With the above directions, it is submitted,the recommendation made by the Ld. Amicus Curiae withrespect to the Applicant was considered and acted upon.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A18. That this Hon’ble Court, on 09.10.2015, requested Mr. VinodRai to complete the audit of SPSTT for the period 01.04.2009 to01.04.2014 and to submit report. It is submitted that pursuant tothe above order, the Special Audit Authority conducted detailedaudit of the Applicant from June, 2015 and submitted its reportbefore this Hon’ble Court on 28.03.2016. It is respectfully submittedBthat the said audit report does not record any finding that:

(a) The properties of SPSTT are part of the properties of theTemple; (b) Funds have been transferred from the Temple to SPSTT; C

(c) The Trust is entrusted with the administration of theTemple; (d) There exists any agreement between the Trust and theTemple on any matters relating to the rituals and rites orany other functions in the Temple; D

(e) The working of SPSTT is accountable to the Templeadministration; or that (f) There exists a legally auditable relationship betweenSPSTT and the Temple.”

E2.2 Certain interim orders passed by this Court in Civil AppealNo.2732 of 2020 and the Report of the learned Amicus Curiae dated15.04.2014 are referred to as under:

“24. Additionally, the Applicant respectfully submits that thedecision of the Temple Committees to conduct audit of theFApplicant is misconceived in view of the following, among others,reasons:

i.The Applicant is a distinct and separate entity from the Temple.There are no findings to the contrary by this Hon’ble Court orthe High Court, as there was no adjudication on this aspect; G

ii.The administration of the Temple contemplated by ChapterIII of the TC Act has been handed over to the AdministrativeCommittee and Advisory Committee pursuant to the judgment.The Applicant respectfully submits that Committees are notempowered, under the TC Act, to direct audit of the Applicant H

– a third party which is independent and distinct from theTemple. Such an action, it is submitted would be illegal, ultravires the TC Act and beyond the scope of the directions ofthis Hon’ble Court.

A

iii. The reliance placed on Paragraph 116 of the judgment, forthe purpose of directing the audit of the Applicant, it isBrespectfully submitted, is misdirected as the directionscontained therein pertain to the functions to be performed bythe Committees of the Temple, with respect to theadministration of the Temple, in the way forward. The saiddirections cannot be interpreted to exercise control over theCTrusts created by the erstwhile Ruler, for the purpose ofperforming different objects;

iv. A reading of clause (g) of Paragraph 116 of the judgmentmakes it evident that the audit primarily deals with the Templeand its properties, which is the subject matter of the underlyinglitigation. In this regard, it may be seen that none of the auditreports suggests that any property or funds of the Temple hasbeen transferred to the Applicant or that it has played anyrole in the day to day administration of the Temple; D

v.The judgment, it is submitted did not specifically deal withSPSTT. It is reiterated that this Hon’ble Court did not havean opportunity to consider the relation of SPSTT with theTemple or its functions, which necessitate a direction to bepassed to conduct audit of accounts of SPSTT; E

vi. The Applicant was subjected to a special audit pursuant tothe orders of this Hon’ble Court and it had also filed detailedobjections to the same, by way of an Affidavit. Under thegiven circumstances, subjecting the Applicant to another auditespecially when it has always remained as a stand-alone trustis highly unreasonable and unjustified; and F

G

vii. The suggestion for conduct of an audit of SPSTT wasvehemently opposed and the said aspect, it is respectfullysubmitted, was dealt with by this Hon’ble Court in its previousorders.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

2.3 In the premises, the application prays:

“(a) Allow the present Application and pass appropriate directionsto exclude Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust from the auditof its accounts as per the directions given in Paragraph 116(g) ofthe judgment dated 13.07.2020 in Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2020,as the said Trust remains separate and distinct from SreePadmanabhaswamy Temple; (b) Pass an appropriate order holding that the Applicant SreePadmanabha Swamy Temple Trust is an independent entity distinctform Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and does not come underthe administrative control of the Administrative Committee and/or Advisory Committee under the Travancore Cochin HinduReligious Endowments Act, 1950.”

3. In this backdrop, the following observations made by this Courtin its judgment dated 13.07.2020 disposing of Civil Appeal No.2732 of2020 and allied matters must now be noted:- “34. The Order dated 05.05.2015 passed by this Court noted thesubmission of the learned Amicus Curiae that an audit beconducted with regard to the account of PadmanabhaswamyTemple Trust and its properties. It also noted the submission ofappellants that a special audit for the period had already beenconducted, but he would not have any objection in cooperatingwith Mr. Rai. The Order, therefore, directed:- “In the circumstances, therefore, we direct that a copy of theaudit report filed on behalf of the Padmanabhan Swamy Trustin this court for the period 01.04.2008 shall be forwarded toMr. Rai for his perusal and evaluation. We further direct thatin case Mr. Rai upon consideration of the audit alreadyconducted is of the opinion that a fresh/special audit needs tobe conducted for the period 01.04.2008 onwards he shall befree to undertake that exercise in which case the Trust shallmake available all such information and record as may benecessary for completion of that exercise. Mr. Rai will also dowell to raise any query that may be relevant for completion ofthe audit to enable the trust to answer them. We extend thetime for completion of the audit till 31.12.2015.

We permit the State Government to approach the ExpertCommittee for scaling down the staff deployed forinventorisation and archiving of antiques and artifacts byKELTRON and Expert Committee who may uponconsideration of any such request issue appropriate orders inthat regard. Mr. Rai has in terms of communication dated1.04.2015 raised a demand for a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/-representing the total fee including expenses etc. for the periodup to December, 2015. There is no objection by any oneappearing for the parties to the release of the said amount infavour of Mr. Rai. We accordingly direct the AdministrativeCommittee to release the amount billed by Mr. Rai.

*** *** ***

*** *** ***

36. In March 2016, Report about Special Audit of SreePadmanabhaswamy Temple, its properties and Sree PadmanabhaSwamy Temple Trust was filed by Mr. Vinod Rai, running intotwo volumes along with “Major Audit Observations andRecommendations”.

The Administrative Committee appointed by this Courtresolved on 13.06.2017 as under:- “the Committee is in the darkness on the financialposition of the temple. Quarterly budget proposalsshould be prepared and communicated to the Committee.Similarly, monthly accounts statement should be placedbefore the Committee before 10th of every succeedingmonth. The matter will be communicated to the ExecutiveOfficer.”

The resolution was communicated to the Executive Officer.”

3.1 In keeping with the submissions made by the learned AmicusCuriae, direction No.116(g) issued by this Court was as under:- “…..

(g) Shall order audit for the last 25 years as suggested by thelearned Amicus Curiae. The audit shall be conducted by a firmof reputed Chartered Accountants. The Advisory Committee shallalso consider what further steps need to be taken for thepreservation of the Temple properties, both movable andimmovable.”

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate appearing for theAdministrative and Advisory Committees of Sree PadmanabhaswamyTemple has reiterated the submissions made in the aforesaid reports.On the other hand, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocateappearing for SPSTT has prayed that this Court may pass appropriateorders declaring SPSTT to be an independent entity distinct from SreeBPadmanabhaswamy Temple.

A

5. In response to the Report of the learned Amicus Curiae dated15.04.2014, in its order dated 24.04.2014 this Court had initially directedthat special audit of the Temple and its properties be conducted by ShriVinod Rai. Later, the order dated 05.05.2015 recorded the submissionsCof Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for SPSTTthat the Trust would not have any difficulty in cooperating with Mr. Raiin undertaking scrutiny of the Audit Reports and in conducting a freshaudit.

6. If direction No.116(g) as stated above, is considered in the lightDof developments leading to the passing of the Judgment dated 13.07.2020,it is quite clear that the audit contemplated by said direction was notintended to be confined to the Temple but was also with respect to SPSTT.This direction has to be seen in the light of the report dated 15.04.2014of the learned Amicus Curiae and the submissions of Mr. Arvind P.EDatar, learned Senior Advocate, as recorded in the order dated05.05.2015.

Thus, the first prayer made in Miscellaneous Application No.1465of 2021 deserves to be rejected.

7. The second prayer made in said Miscellaneous Application willFrequire assessment of facts which analysis may appropriately be doneby a Court or an authority competent to go into that question after thespecial audit as directed in direction No.116(g) and as explainedhereinabove, is conducted. We, therefore, refrain from going into issuespertaining to the second prayer.G8. Miscellaneous Application No.1465 of 2021 is, thus, disposedof in aforesaid terms.

9. We now come to the reports filed by the Administrative andAdvisory Committees. Our answer with respect to the first prayer inMiscellaneous Application No.1465 of 2021 will be sufficient to takeH

care of the issue of special audit dealt with in the resolution dated27.10.2020. The urgency spelt out in the report dated 31.08.2021, however,calls for immediate action. We, therefore, direct that the special audit, asreferred to hereinabove, with respect to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Templeand SPSTT be completed as early as possible and preferably withinthree months from the date of this order.

10. As the order dated 05.05.2015 had recorded the statement ofMr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate for SPSTT, we are certainthat SPSTT will render complete cooperation in the conduct of specialaudit.

Ankit Gyan

Miscellaneous Application disposed of.

A