M.S.SREERAJKRISHNAN POTTI vs STATE OF KERALA

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​1​
​IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
​PRESENT​
​THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
​&​
​THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
​RD​
​TUESDAY, THE 3​ ​DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 / 12TH KARTHIKA,​​1948​
​WP(C) NO.5558 OF 2026​
​PETITIONERS:-​
​1​ ​M.S.SREERAJKRISHNAN POTTI, AGED 46 YEARS​
​SON OF MOHANAN POTTI, MANGALASSERY MANA, VP 9/80 C,​
​POTTAYIL, KOCHUPOTTAYIL, MALAYINKEEZHU P O,​
​VILAVOORKKAL, MALAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,​
​KERALA, PIN - 695 571​
​2​ ​N.VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 49 YEARS​
​SON OF NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VISHNU NILAYAM,​
​KADIYOOR MURI, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA,​
​ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690 103​
​BY ADVS.​
​SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY​
​SMT.SNEHA ROSE​
​RESPONDENTS:-​
​1​ ​STATE OF KERALA​
​REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE (DEVASWOM)​
​GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001​
​2​ ​TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​
​REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS,​
​NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​2​
​3​ ​THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER​
​TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCOD, KAWDIAR POST,​
​THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003​
​BY SRI G.BIJU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD​
​THIS​ ​WRIT​ ​PETITION​ ​(CIVIL)​​HAVING​​COME​​UP​​FOR​​ADMISSION​
​ON​ ​27.10.2026,​ ​THE​ ​COURT​ ​ON​ ​03.11.2026​ ​DELIVERED​ ​THE​
​FOLLOWING:​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​3​
​‘CR’​
​JUDGMENT​
​Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2026​
​K. V. Jayakumar, J.​
​This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.​
​2.​ ​The​ ​petitioners​ ​state​ ​that​ ​they​ ​are​ ​the​ ​Acharyas/Thantris​ ​of​ ​various​
​temples,​ ​including​​the​​temples​​under​​the​​Travancore​​Devaswom​​Board.​ ​They​​are​
​the​​Chairman​​and​​Vice​​Chairman​​of​​the​​Akhila​​Thantri​​Pracharak​​Sabha.​ ​It​​is​​stated​
​that​ ​the​ ​rituals​ ​are​ ​prescribed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​procedure​ ​contemplated​ ​in​ ​‘Thantra​
​Samuchayam’​​and​​which​​is​​accepted​​by​​the​​Travancore​​Devaswom​​Board​​also.​ ​The​
​‘Thantra​​Samuchayam’​​describes​​the​​rituals​​and​​its​​procedure​​to​​be​​followed​​for​​the​
​construction of Sree Kovil, installation of deities, installation of flag mast, etc.​
​3.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​rituals​​for​​the​​installation/replacement​​of​​the​​flag​
​mast​​are​​to​​be​​carried​​out​​by​​the​​Thantri​​of​​that​​temple.​ ​After​​the​​said​​rituals,​​the​
​‘Vahanam’​ ​of​​the​​deity​​removed​​from​​the​​top​​of​​the​​old​​flag​​mast​​will​​be​​handed​
​over​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Thantri,​​and​​the​​Thantri​​(Acharyan)​​has​​the​​right​​to​​collect​​the​​same​
​from​​the​​owner​​(Yajamanan)​​either​​as​​a​​‘Dhanam’​​(donation)​​offered​​to​​the​​Brahmin​
​or​​the​​same​​will​​be​​melted​​and​​will​​be​​given​​to​​the​​Thantri.​ ​This​​is​​the​​custom​​and​
​practice​ ​followed​ ​ever​ ​since,​ ​and​​the​​said​​custom​​is​​protected​​under​​law​​and​​the​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​4​
​Constitution​​based​​on​​‘Thantra​​Samuchayam’.​ ​The​​relevant​​portion​​of​​the​​‘Thantra​
​Samuchayam’, ‘Shilpa Bhagam’ is produced as Ext.P1.​
​4.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Devaswom​ ​Boards​ ​are​ ​considered​ ​as​ ​the​
​Yajamanan​​(owner)​​and​​the​​Thantri​​is​​the​​‘Acharyan’​​from​​time​​immemorial.​ ​In​​the​
​year​ ​2012,​ ​the​ ​Thantri​ ​Samajam​ ​had​ ​made​ ​a​ ​demand​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Travancore​
​Devaswom​ ​Board​ ​seeking​ ​revision​ ​of​ ​remuneration​ ​and​ ​financial​ ​benefits​ ​for​ ​the​
​conduct​​of​​rituals​​in​​the​​temple​​by​​the​​Thantri​​and​​his​​assistants.​ ​Consequently,​​the​
​2nd​ ​respondent,​ ​Board,​ ​after​ ​hearing​ ​the​ ​members​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Thantri​​Samajam,​​has​
​revised​ ​the​ ​Dakshina​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Thantri​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​assistants.​ ​Thereafter,​ ​the​
​Devaswom​ ​Commissioner​ ​has​ ​issued​ ​Ext.P2​ ​circular,​ ​ROC​ ​No.21620/96/PR​ ​dated​
​17.09.2012.​ ​In​ ​the​​said​​circular,​​it​​is​​stated​​that​​the​​physical​​objects​​which​​were​
​damaged​ ​or​ ​replaced​ ​by​ ​a​ ​new​ ​one​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​considered​ ​as​ ​the​ ​property​ ​of​ ​the​
​Devaswom.​
​5.​ ​Challenging​ ​Ext.P2​ ​circular,​​the​​petitioners​​have​​approached​​this​​Court​
​seeking the following reliefs :​
​“i.​ ​To​ ​issue​ ​a​​writ​​of​​Certiorari​​or​​other​​appropriate​​writ​​order​​or​
​direction​ ​to​ ​call​ ​for​ ​the​ ​records​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​Exhibit​ ​P2,​ ​and​ ​to​
​quash​ ​the​ ​same​ ​to​ ​the​ ​extent​ ​it​ ​says​ ​while​ ​conducting​ ​the​
​rituals,​​if​​any​​material​​objects/metals,​​having​​divine​​sanctity,​​in​
​whatever​ ​for​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​retained​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Devaswom​ ​Board​
​themselves while replacing the same.​
​ii.​ ​To​​issue​​a​​writ​​of​​Mandamus​​or​​other​​appropriate​​writ,​​order​​or​
​direction,​​declaring​​that​​Ext​​P2​​circular,​​to​​that​​extent​​it​​covers​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​5​
​the​ ​idols​ ​or​ ​‘Vahanam’​ ​installed​ ​on​ ​the​ ​top​ ​of​ ​the​ ​flag​ ​mast,​
​while​​replacing​​the​​flag​​mast​​as​​a​​Devaswom​​asset​​is​​incorrect​
​and illegal.​
​6.​ ​The​​2nd​​respondent,​​Travancore​​Devaswom​​Board,​​has​​placed​​on​​record​
​a​​counter​​affidavit​​as​​directed​​by​​this​​Court.​ ​In​​the​​counter​​affidavit,​​it​​is​​stated​​that​
​the​ ​disputed​ ​circular​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​after​ ​considering​ ​the​ ​contentions​ ​raised​ ​by​ ​the​
​Thantri​ ​Samajam.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​said​​circular,​​it​​is​​stated​​that​​the​​items​​from​​which​​the​
​Chaithanyam​​of​​the​​Devan​​has​​been​​detached​​by​​way​​of​​Avahanam​​shall​​remain​​the​
​property​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Devaswom.​ ​Exts.P3​ ​and​ ​P4​ ​communications​ ​do​ ​not​ ​have​ ​any​
​authority​ ​or​ ​binding​ ​effect​ ​to​ ​treat​ ​it​ ​as​ ​a​ ​precedent.​ ​Ext.P2​ ​circular​ ​has​ ​an​
​overriding effect over Exts.P3 and P4 communications.​
​7.​ ​For​ ​the​ ​sake​ ​of​ ​effective​ ​administration,​ ​the​ ​Board​ ​has​​issued​​several​
​rules​​and​​orders,​​and​​the​​Devaswom​​Manual​​is​​a​​codified​​compilation​​of​​such​​rules​
​and​​orders.​ ​Chapter​​XI​​of​​the​​Devaswom​​Manual​​deals​​with​​Thiruvabharanam​​and​
​Bharanipathrom.​
​8.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​stated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​counter​ ​that​​as​​per​​the​​Devaswom​​Manual,​
​which​​is​​a​​procedural​​code,​​all​​the​​valuables,​​including​​fixtures​​such​​as​​flag-staffs,​
​bells,​ ​Kampivilakku,​ ​Tharappuvilakku,​ ​etc.,​ ​are​ ​required​ ​to​ ​be​ ​entered​​in​​the​​said​
​register under the appropriate heads.​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​6​
​9.​ ​We​ ​have​​heard​​the​​submissions​​of​​Sri.​​S.​​Krishnamoorthy,​​the​​learned​
​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​​writ​​petitioners,​​Sri.​​G.​​Biju,​​the​​learned​​Standing​​Counsel​​for​​the​
​Travancore​​Devaswom​​Board,​​and​​Sri.​​K.​​R.​​Sunil,​​the​​learned​​Special​​Government​
​Pleader (Devaswom).​
​10.​ ​Sri.​ ​S.​ ​Krishnamoorthy,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​petitioners,​
​submitted​​that​​Ext.P2​​circular​​is​​to​​be​​set​​aside​​so​​far​​as​​it​​states​​that​​any​​utensils​
​or​​vessels​​having​​divine​​sanctity​​shall​​be​​retained​​by​​the​​Board​​when​​the​​same​​is​
​replaced​​by​​another​​one.​ ​According​​to​​the​​petitioners,​​this​​is​​against​​the​​customary​
​principles​​which​​have​​to​​be​​followed​​by​​the​​Acharyas​​in​​the​​temple.​ ​The​​practice​
​followed​ ​from​ ​time​ ​immemorial​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Thantris​ ​are​ ​entitled​ ​to​ ​receive​ ​the​
​replaced​ ​items​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Vahanam,​ ​idol​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deity​ ​installed​ ​on​ ​the​ ​flag​ ​mast​ ​as​
​‘Dhanam’.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Board​ ​cannot​ ​change​ ​the​
​customary​ ​practice​ ​which​ ​was​ ​followed​ ​for​ ​several​ ​decades.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​
​learned​​counsel,​​even​​after​​the​​issuance​​of​​Ext.P2​​circular,​​the​​Board​​had​​continued​
​to​​follow​​the​​customary​​practice.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​has​​referred​​to​​the​​relevant​
​page​​of​​Thantra​​Samuchayam​​which​​describes​​the​​procedure​​to​​be​​followed​​for​​the​
​construction​​of​​Sreekovil,​​installation​​of​​deities,​​installation​​of​​flag​​mast,​​etc.​ ​As​​per​
​the​​Thantra​​Samuchayam,​​the​​replacement​​of​​the​​flag​​mast​​is​​to​​be​​conducted​​by​
​the​​Thantri​​of​​that​​temple.​ ​It​​is​​stated​​in​​the​​said​​book​​that​​if​​the​​old​​flag​​mast​​is​
​replaced​​with​​a​​new​​one,​​the​​Vahanam​​of​​the​​deity,​​like​​eagle,​​bullocks,​​tiger,​​horse​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​7​
​(Vaji​​Vahanam),​​etc.,​​installed​​on​​the​​top​​of​​the​​old​​flag​​mast​​are​​to​​be​​offered​​to​
​the​ ​Thantri​ ​(Acharyan).​ ​The​ ​Thantri​ ​has​ ​to​ ​collect​ ​the​ ​said​ ​Vahanam​ ​from​ ​the​
​owner​​(Yajamanan)​​either​​as​​Dhanam​​(donation)​​to​​a​​Brahmin​​or​​the​​same​​is​​to​​be​
​melted​​and​​given​​to​​the​​Thantri.​ ​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​it​​is​​a​​right​​of​
​the​​Thantri​​to​​get​​the​​old​​Vahanam​​when​​it​​is​​replaced​​with​​a​​new​​one​​as​​per​​the​
​Thantra Samuchayam.​
​11.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​would​ ​then​ ​submit​ ​that​ ​the​ ​customary​ ​law,​ ​also​
​known​ ​as​ ​jus​ ​non​ ​scriptum​ ​(unwritten​ ​law),​ ​arises​ ​from​ ​practices,​ ​traditions​ ​and​
​habits​ ​of​ ​communities​ ​that​ ​are​ ​observed​​with​​a​​sense​​of​​legal​​obligation​​and​​are​
​recognised​ ​as​ ​a​ ​binding​ ​rule​ ​when​ ​it​ ​gains​ ​widespread​ ​acceptance​ ​and​ ​is​
​perpetuated by continuous adherence.​
​12.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​carefully​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​submissions​ ​advanced​ ​and​ ​perused​
​the materials placed on record.​
​13.​ ​The​ ​principal​ ​contention​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​
​petitioners​​is​​that​​the​​provision​​in​​Ext.P2​​circular​​stipulating​​that​​old​​metal​​articles​
​and​ ​utensils,​ ​which​ ​are​ ​replaced​ ​by​ ​new​ ​ones,​​shall​​be​​retained​​as​​assets​​of​​the​
​Board​ ​is​ ​illegal​ ​and​ ​unsustainable,​ ​being​ ​contrary​ ​to​ ​Verse​ ​34​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Thantra​
​Samuchayam.​
​14.​ ​We​ ​find​​that​​Ext.P2​​circular​​was​​issued​​after​​considering​​the​​demands​
​raised​​by​​the​​Thantris​​and​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​the​​report​​submitted​​by​​the​​Finance​​and​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​8​
​Accounts​ ​Officer.​ ​The​ ​circular​ ​was​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​regulate​ ​the​ ​Dakshina,​ ​Dearness​
​Allowance​ ​(DA),​ ​Travelling​ ​Allowance​ ​(TA)​ ​and​ ​other​ ​allowances​ ​payable​ ​to​ ​the​
​Thantris​​and​​Parikarmis.​​Furthermore,​​Chapter​​XI​​of​​the​​Devaswom​​Manual,​​which​
​deals​ ​with​ ​Thiruvabharanam​ ​and​ ​Bharanipathrom,​ ​specifically​ ​provides​ ​for​ ​the​
​maintenance​ ​of​ ​separate​ ​registers​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​all​ ​valuables​ ​belonging​ ​to​ ​the​
​Devaswom,​ ​including​ ​fixtures​ ​such​ ​as​ ​flagstaffs,​ ​bells,​ ​Kampivilakku,​
​Tharappuvilakku,​​etc.​​Rule​​3(a)​​further​​stipulates​​that​​all​​articles,​​including​​jewels,​
​vessels​​and​​other​​items​​made​​of​​gold,​​silver​​or​​Panchaloham,​​shall​​be​​entered​​in​​the​
​register under the head 'Thiruvabharanams'.r:​
​ ക്രിയാദികൾക്കുശേഷം ​ ​ ആചാരപരമായി ​ ​ തന്ത്രിക്ക് ​
​ അവകാശപ്പെട്ടവ കൊണ്ടു പോകുന്നതു സംബന്ധിച്ച് ​
​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​
ക്ഷേത്രങ്ങളിൽ ദേവചൈതന്യം സംക്രമിക്കപ്പെട്ട് ആചരിച്ചു
​ ​ ​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​
പോരുന്നവയും അങ്ങനെ അല്ലാത്തവയുമായ ഭൗതിക വസ്തുക്കൾ
​ കേടുപാടുകൾ ​ ​ ഉണ്ടാകുമ്പോഴോ ​ ​ ഉയർന്ന ​ ​ നിലവാരത്തിലേക്ക് ​
​ പരിവർത്തനം ​ ​ ചെയ്യപ്പെടുമ്പോഴോ ​ ​ നിലവിലുള്ളവ ​
​ ഉപയോഗിക്കാറുണ്ട് .​
​ ഇക്കാര്യം ​ ​ സംബന്ധിച്ച ​ ​ പൂർവകാല ​ ​ നടപടിക്രമങ്ങൾ ​ ​ എന്തു ​
​ തന്നെയായാലും ​ ​ ഇത്തരത്തിലുളള ​ ​ വസ്തുക്കൾ ​ ​ പൊതു ​
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
സ്വത്തായതിനാൽ ദേവസ്വത്തിൻ്റെ സ്വത്തായി തന്നെ
​ .​
നിലനിർത്തേണ്ടതാണ്
​15.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​petitioners​ ​has​ ​invited​ ​the​
​attention​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​to​ ​Verse​ ​34​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Thantra​ ​Samuchayam,​​Shilpa​​Bhagam,​
​which reads as follows::​
​ ഉത്പാട്യോക്തവദല്പബിംബമുപനീയാതോ ​ ​ ബഹിഃ ​ ​ സന്ദഹേത് ​
​ ഗോസപ്പിസ്തപിതം തദർഹദഹനേ തദ്ദാരവം ചേത് ഗുരു :​
​ ലൌ ഹം ചേത് ഗുരവേ സമപ്പയതു തത് വിദ്രാവ്യ യജ്വാഥവാ ​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​9​
​ ഛിത്വാ നാളമിദം വിശോധ്യ സുശുഭം തത് കൌതുകം കല്പയേത് ​
​(Verse 34)​
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​
ഉടഞ്ഞ ബിംബം മരംകൊണ്ടുള്ളതാണെങ്കിൽ തന്ത്രി അത് നെയ്യിൽ
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
മുക്കി ഉചിതമായ വിറകുകൊണ്ടുള്ള അഗ്നിയിൽ
​ .​ ​ ​ ​ ​
ദഹിപ്പിക്കേണ്ടതാകുന്നു ലോഹബിംബമാണെങ്കിൽ ബ്രാഹ്മണന്നു
​ ​ ​ .​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
ദാനം ചെയ്യണം അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ഉരുക്കി ശുദ്ധിചെയ്യ് തന്ത്രി
​ അതുകൊണ്ട് കാപ്പ് പണിയിയ്ക്കണം .​
​16.​ ​The​​main​​contention​​advanced​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​petitioners​
​is​​that​​the​​provision​​in​​Ext.P2​​circular​​stipulating​​that​​old​​metal​​articles​​and​​utensils,​
​which​​are​​replaced​​by​​new​​ones,​​shall​​be​​retained​​as​​assets​​of​​the​​Board​​is​​illegal​
​and unsustainable, being contrary to Verse 34 of the Thantra Samuchayam.​
​17.​ ​We​ ​find​​that​​Ext.P2​​circular​​was​​issued​​after​​considering​​the​​demands​
​raised​​by​​the​​Thantris​​and​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​the​​report​​submitted​​by​​the​​Finance​​and​
​Accounts​ ​Officer.​ ​The​ ​circular​ ​was​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​regulate​ ​the​ ​Dakshina,​ ​Dearness​
​Allowance​ ​(DA),​ ​Travelling​ ​Allowance​ ​(TA)​ ​and​ ​other​ ​allowances​ ​payable​ ​to​ ​the​
​Thantris​​and​​Parikarmis.​​Furthermore,​​Chapter​​XI​​of​​the​​Devaswom​​Manual,​​which​
​deals​ ​with​ ​Thiruvabharanam​ ​and​ ​Bharanipathrom,​ ​specifically​ ​provides​ ​for​ ​the​
​maintenance​ ​of​ ​separate​ ​registers​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​all​ ​valuables​ ​belonging​ ​to​ ​the​
​Devaswom,​ ​including​ ​fixtures​ ​such​ ​as​ ​flagstaffs,​ ​bells,​ ​Kampivilakku,​
​Tharappuvilakku,​​etc.​​Rule​​3(a)​​further​​stipulates​​that​​all​​articles,​​including​​jewels,​
​vessels​​and​​other​​items​​made​​of​​gold,​​silver​​or​​Panchaloham,​​shall​​be​​entered​​in​​the​
​register under the head 'Thiruvabharanams'.​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​10​
​1​
​18.​ ​In​ ​K.​ ​Ramalingam​ ​and​ ​Ors.​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Tamil​ ​Nadu​ ​,​ ​the​ ​Apex​
​Court​ ​had​ ​occasion​ ​to​ ​analyse​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​​temple​​property​​and​​the​​role​​of​​the​
​State as custodian. It was observed as under:​
​23.​ ​Before​ ​turning​ ​to​ ​the​ ​rival​ ​contentions,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​useful​ ​to​ ​recall​ ​why​
​property​ ​belonging​ ​to​ ​religious​ ​institutions​ ​is​ ​treated​ ​differently​ ​from​
​ordinary​​property.​​Our​​country's​​religious​​institutions​​are​​not​​merely​​places​
​of​ ​worship,​ ​they​ ​are,​ ​in​ ​law​ ​and,​ ​in​ ​fact,​ ​repositories​ ​of​ ​considerable​
​wealth,​​land,​​buildings,​​jewellery​​and​​specie,​​accumulated​​over​​centuries​
​through​​the​​offerings​​of​​ordinary​​devotees​​and​​the​​endowments​​of​​kings​
​and​​commoners​​alike,​​given​​in​​the​​faith​​that​​what​​was​​dedicated​​to​​the​
​deity​​would​​remain​​dedicated​​to​​the​​deity​​in​​perpetuity.​​That​​wealth,​​once​
​given,​​ceases​​to​​belong​​to​​the​​donor,​​to​​the​​priest,​​to​​the​​trustee,​​or​​to​​the​
​State;​​it​​vests​​in​​the​​deity,​​and​​every​​hand​​through​​which​​it​​subsequently​
​passes​​holds​​it​​only​​in​​trust​​for​​the​​deity​​and,​​through​​the​​deity,​​for​​the​
​community​​of​​worshippers​​it​​was​​meant​​to​​serve.​​Every​​custodian​​holds​​it​
​only in trust for the deity and the worshippers it serves.​
​24.​ ​A​ ​seven-Judge​ ​Bench​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Commissioner,​ ​Hindu​
​Religious​​Endowments,​​Madras​​v.​​Sri​​Lakshmindra​​Thirtha​​Swamiar​​of​​Sri​
​Shirur​​Mutt​​(1954)​​1​​SCC​​412,​​held​​that​​while​​Articles​​25​​and​​26​​of​​the​
​Constitution​​protect​​religious​​belief​​and​​practice,​​they​​do​​not​​immunise​​the​
​secular​​and​​economic​​administration​​of​​religious​​property​​from​​regulation​
​by​ ​law.​ ​The​ ​same​ ​view​ ​was​ ​reaffirmed​ ​in​ ​A.S.​​Narayana​​Deekshitulu​​v.​
​State​ ​of​ ​Andhra​ ​Pradesh(1996)​ ​9​ ​SCC​​548,​​where​​the​​administration​​of​
​temple​​funds​​and​​offices​​was​​held​​to​​be​​a​​secular​​function​​distinct​​from​
​the freedom of worship itself.​
​1​
​[2026 INSC 1144]​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​11​
​19.​ ​The​ ​Thantra​ ​Samuchayam​ ​is​ ​undoubtedly​ ​an​ ​important​ ​traditional​
​Sanskrit​ ​treatise​ ​on​ ​Hindu​ ​temple​ ​Tantra,​ ​particularly​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Kerala​
​tradition​ ​of​ ​temple​ ​worship​ ​and​ ​ritual​ ​practices.​ ​It​ ​deals​ ​with​ ​the​ ​practical​ ​and​
​doctrinal​ ​aspects​ ​of​ ​temple​ ​worship,​ ​consecration,​ ​installation​ ​of​ ​deities,​ ​rituals,​
​purification,​​offerings​​and​​the​​responsibilities​​of​​the​​Thantri.​​It​​is​​equally​​undisputed​
​that,​ ​in​ ​the​​Kerala​​temple​​tradition,​​the​​Thantri​​occupies​​a​​distinct​​and​​significant​
​religious​​position.​​The​​Thantri​​is​​the​​principal​​ritual​​authority​​responsible​​for​​matters​
​concerning the spiritual and ritual integrity of the temple and its deity.​
​20.​ ​The​​question​​is​​whether​​a​​customary​​or​​ritual​​entitlement​​of​​the​​Thantri​
​under​ ​the​ ​Thantra​ ​Samuchayam​ ​can​ ​be​ ​construed​ ​as​ ​conferring​ ​ownership​ ​over​
​property belonging to the deity.​
​21.​ ​Article​​25​​of​​the​​Constitution​​guarantees​​freedom​​of​​conscience​​and​​the​
​right​​freely​​to​​profess,​​practise​​and​​propagate​​religion.​​It​​provides​​that,​​subject​​to​
​public​​order,​​morality,​​health​​and​​the​​other​​provisions​​of​​Part​​III​​of​​the​​Constitution,​
​all​ ​persons​ ​are​ ​equally​ ​entitled​ ​to​ ​freedom​ ​of​ ​conscience​ ​and​ ​the​ ​right​ ​freely​ ​to​
​profess,​​practise​​and​​propagate​​religion.​​At​​the​​same​​time,​​Article​​25(2)(a)​​expressly​
​provides​​that​​nothing​​in​​the​​Article​​shall​​affect​​the​​operation​​of​​any​​existing​​law​​or​
​prevent​ ​the​ ​State​ ​from​ ​making​ ​any​ ​law​ ​regulating​ ​or​ ​restricting​ ​any​ ​economic,​
​financial,​ ​political​ ​or​ ​other​ ​secular​ ​activity​​which​​may​​be​​associated​​with​​religious​
​practice.​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​12​
​22.​ ​Thus,​ ​the​ ​constitutional​ ​scheme​ ​does​ ​not​ ​extinguish​ ​or​ ​disregard​
​religious​​customs​​and​​practices.​​It​​recognises​​and​​protects​​religious​​freedom​​while​
​making​​it​​clear​​that​​secular​​activities​​associated​​with​​religious​​practice,​​including​​the​
​administration​ ​and​ ​management​ ​of​ ​religious​ ​property,​ ​remain​ ​subject​ ​to​
​constitutional and statutory regulation.​
​23.​ ​With​​the​​advent​​of​​the​​constitutional​​framework​​and​​the​​enactment​​of​
​laws​ ​governing​ ​the​ ​administration​ ​of​ ​Devaswoms,​ ​the​ ​position​ ​of​ ​temple​
​functionaries​ ​has​ ​increasingly​ ​been​ ​brought​ ​within​ ​an​ ​organised​ ​administrative​
​structure.​ ​The​ ​services​ ​rendered​ ​by​ ​Thantris​ ​and​ ​other​ ​temple​ ​functionaries​ ​are​
​recognised​ ​and​ ​regulated,​ ​and​ ​their​ ​remuneration,​ ​Dakshina,​ ​travelling​ ​allowance​
​and​ ​other​ ​admissible​ ​benefits​ ​are​ ​determined​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​applicable​
​administrative​ ​framework.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​case​ ​on​ ​hand,​ ​Ext.P2​ ​circular​ ​itself​ ​was​ ​issued​
​pursuant​ ​to​ ​a​ ​representation​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Akhila​ ​Kerala​ ​Thantri​ ​Samajam​
​seeking​ ​enhancement​ ​of​ ​remuneration​ ​and​​other​​benefits​​payable​​to​​the​​Thantris​
​and other temple functionaries.​
​24.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​of​ ​the​ ​considered​ ​view​ ​that,​​though​​the​​Thantri​​may​​exercise​
​authority​ ​over​ ​the​ ​religious​ ​and​ ​ritual​ ​aspects​ ​of​ ​temple​ ​administration,​ ​such​
​authority​​cannot​​be​​extended​​to​​confer​​ownership​​over,​​or​​a​​right​​to​​appropriate​​or​
​dispose​​of,​​the​​assets​​belonging​​to​​the​​deity.​​The​​authority​​to​​perform​​and​​supervise​
​religious​​ceremonies​​must​​be​​distinguished​​from​​the​​right​​to​​own​​or​​deal​​with​​the​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​13​
​property​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deity.​ ​The​ ​latter​ ​is​ ​governed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicable​ ​statutory​ ​and​
​administrative​ ​framework,​ ​under​ ​which​ ​the​ ​properties​ ​and​ ​valuables​ ​belonging​​to​
​the​ ​deity​ ​are​ ​required​ ​to​ ​be​ ​duly​ ​accounted​ ​for,​ ​preserved​ ​and​ ​maintained​ ​as​
​Devaswom assets.​
​2​ 5​ .​ ​In​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Madhya​ ​Pradesh​ ​v.​ ​Pujari​ ​Utthan​ ​Avam​ ​Kalyan​
​2​
​Samiti​ ​,​​the​​Hon'ble​​Supreme​​Court​​reiterated​​that​​a​​Pujari​​is​​essentially​​a​​person​
​entrusted​ ​with​ ​the​ ​management​​of​​the​​deity's​​property​​and​​does​​not​​acquire​​any​
​ownership​ ​rights​ ​over​ ​such​ ​property​ ​merely​ ​by​ ​virtue​ ​of​ ​performing​ ​religious​
​functions​ ​or​ ​managing​ ​the​ ​same.​ ​The​ ​performance​ ​of​ ​religious​ ​duties​ ​or​ ​the​
​discharge​​of​​responsibilities​​connected​​with​​the​​management​​of​​the​​deity's​​property​
​cannot, by itself, confer any proprietary interest in such property.​
​26.​ ​In​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Orissa​ ​v.​ ​Shri​ ​Jagannath​ ​Temple​ ​Managing​
​3​
​Committee​ ​,​​the​​Hon'ble​​Supreme​​Court​​had​​occasion​​to​​consider​​the​​distinction​
​between​​religious​​activities​​and​​secular​​matters​​connected​​with​​the​​administration​​of​
​a temple. The Apex Court observed as follows:​
​"49.​ ​A​ ​review​ ​of​ ​all​ ​these​ ​judgments​ ​goes​ ​to​ ​show​ ​that​ ​the​
​consistent​ ​view​​of​​this​​Court​​has​​been​​that​​although​​the​​State​​cannot​
​interfere​​with​​freedom​​of​​a​​person​​to​​profess,​​practise​​and​​propagate​​his​
​religion,​​the​​State,​​however,​​can​​control​​the​​secular​​matters​​connected​
​with​ ​religion.​ ​All​ ​the​ ​activities,​ ​in​ ​or​​connected​​with​​a​​temple​​are​​not​
​2​
​[​ (2021) 10 SCC 222]​
​3​
​[​ ​(1997) 8 SCC 422​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​14​
​religious​ ​activities.​ ​The​ ​management​ ​of​ ​a​ ​temple​ ​or​ ​maintenance​ ​of​
​discipline​​and​​order​​inside​​the​​temple​​can​​be​​controlled​​by​​the​​State.​​If​
​any​​law​​is​​passed​​for​​taking​​over​​the​​management​​of​​a​​temple​​it​​cannot​
​be​​struck​​down​​as​​violative​​of​​Article​​25​​or​​Article​​26​​of​​the​​Constitution.​
​The​​management​​of​​the​​temple​​is​​a​​secular​​act.​​The​​temple​​authority​
​may​ ​also​ ​control​ ​the​ ​activities​ ​of​ ​various​ ​servants​​of​​the​​temple.​​The​
​disciplinary​​power​​over​​the​​servants​​of​​the​​temple,​​including​​the​​priests,​
​may​ ​be​ ​given​ ​to​ ​the​ ​temple​ ​committee​ ​appointed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​State.​ ​The​
​temple​​committee​​can​​decide​​the​​quantum​​and​​manner​​of​​payment​​of​
​remuneration​​to​​the​​servants.​​Merely​​because​​a​​system​​of​​payment​​has​
​been​​prevalent​​for​​a​​number​​of​​years,​​it​​is​​no​​ground​​for​​holding​​that​
​such​​system​​must​​continue​​for​​all​​times.​​The​​payment​​of​​remuneration​
​to​​the​​temple​​servants​​was​​not​​a​​religious​​act​​but​​was​​of​​purely​​secular​
​nature."​
​27.​ ​The​​principles​​laid​​down​​by​​the​​Apex​​Court​​above​​apply​​on​​all​​fours​​in​
​the​ ​present​ ​case.​ ​The​ ​authority​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Thantri​ ​is​ ​essentially​ ​concerned​ ​with​ ​the​
​religious​ ​and​ ​ritual​ ​affairs​ ​of​ ​the​​temple.​​Such​​authority​​deserves​​due​​recognition​
​and​ ​protection​ ​in​ ​matters​ ​relating​​to​​worship,​​consecration,​​purification​​and​​other​
​religious​​ceremonies.​​However,​​once​​a​​property​​is​​dedicated​​to​​a​​deity,​​it​​acquires​
​the​ ​character​ ​of​ ​property​​belonging​​to​​the​​deity.​​The​​Thantri,​​merely​​by​​virtue​​of​
​performing​ ​religious​ ​functions​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​deity,​ ​does​ ​not​ ​acquire​ ​any​
​proprietary​ ​interest​ ​in​ ​such​ ​property.​ ​His​ ​entitlement​ ​to​ ​remuneration,​ ​Dakshina,​
​travelling​ ​allowance​ ​and​ ​other​ ​admissible​ ​benefits​ ​is​ ​governed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicable​
​legal​ ​and​ ​administrative​ ​framework.​​Any​​additional​​customary​​entitlement​​claimed​
​over​​the​​property​​of​​the​​deity​​must​​be​​independently​​established​​in​​accordance​​with​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​15​
​law​​and​​cannot​​be​​presumed​​merely​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​a​​ritual​​prescription​​contained​
​in the Thantra Samuchayam.​
​28.​ ​Therefore,​ ​while​ ​the​ ​religious​ ​prescriptions​ ​contained​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Thantra​
​Samuchayam​​may​​be​​relevant​​in​​determining​​the​​appropriate​​ritual​​procedure​​to​​be​
​followed​ ​in​ ​dealing​ ​with​ ​damaged​ ​or​ ​discarded​ ​articles​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​temple​
​worship,​ ​such​ ​prescriptions​ ​cannot,​ ​without​ ​more,​ ​be​ ​construed​ ​as​ ​conferring​ ​a​
​proprietary​​right​​upon​​the​​Thantri​​over​​articles​​and​​valuables​​belonging​​to​​the​​deity.​
​The​ ​religious​ ​authority​ ​to​ ​prescribe​ ​or​ ​supervise​ ​a​ ​ritual​ ​procedure​ ​cannot​ ​be​
​equated with a legal right to appropriate the property of the deity.​
​29.​ ​There​​is​​yet​​another​​matter.​​The​ ​circular​​under​​challenge​​was​​issued​​in​
​the​​year​​2012​​and​​for​​the​​last​​fourteen​​years​​the​​guidelines​​in​​the​​circular​​are​​being​
​followed​​in​​its​​letter​​and​​spirit.​​The​​petitioner​​has​​made​​out​​any​​good​​grounds​​for​
​interfering with the same.​
​This writ petition is dismissed.​
​Sd/-​
​RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
​JUDGE​
​Sd/-​
​K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
​JUDGE​
​Jvt​

​CNR : KLHC010120722026​
​2026:KER:83875​
​W.P(C). No.5558 of 2026​
​16​
​APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.5558 OF 2026​
​PETITIONER EXHIBITS​
​Exhibit P1​ ​THE​ ​RELEVANT​ ​PORTION​ ​OF​ ​THE​
​‘THANTRASAMUCHAYAM’,​ ​‘SHILPA​ ​BHAGAM’​ ​PUBLISHED​
​BY ‘PANCHANGAM PUSTAKASHALA’​
​Exhibit P2​ ​TRUE​ ​COPY​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​LETTER​ ​ISSUED​ ​BY​ ​THE​ ​2ND​
​RESPONDENT​ ​DEVASWOM​ ​COMMISSIONER,​ ​ROC​ ​NO​
​21620/96/PR DATED 17/9/2012​
​Exhibit P3​ ​TRUE​​COPY​​OF​​THE​​COMMUNICATION​​DATED​​3/11/2006​
​ISSUED​ ​BY​ ​THE​ ​SUB-GROUP​ ​OFFICER​ ​OF​ ​SRI​​VARAHA​
​DEVASWOM​
​Exhibit P4​ ​TRUE​​COPY​​OF​​THE​​LETTER​​OF​​RECOMMENDATION​​DATED​
​7/4/2016​ ​ISSUED​ ​BY​ ​THE​ ​DEPUTY​ ​DEVASWOM​
​COMMISSIONER​