01Facts
The petitioners, who stated that they were Thantris and office-bearers of the Akhila Thantri Pracharak Sabha, challenged a 2012 Travancore Devaswom Board circular (Ext.P2).
pp. 3–6They claimed that, under the customary practice described in the *Thantra Samuchayam*, a Thantri was entitled to receive the old Vahanam removed from a replaced flag mast, either as a donation or after it was melted.
pp. 3–6The Board maintained that articles from which the deity’s *Chaithanyam* had been detached remained Devaswom property and had to be accounted for as such.
pp. 3–6The petitioners sought to quash Ext.P2 insofar as it required such articles to be retained by the Board
pp. 3–602Issues
i.Whether the Thantri’s claimed ritual or customary entitlement under the *Thantra Samuchayam* conferred a proprietary right to receive or appropriate a Vahanam removed from a replaced flag mast
pp. 7–9, 11–12ii.Whether Ext.P2 was illegal or unsustainable insofar as it treated replaced metal articles and other valuables as Devaswom assets to be retained and accounted for by the Board
pp. 7–9, 1503Law Applied
Articles 25 and 25(2)(a) of the Constitution protect religious practice while permitting regulation of economic, financial and other secular activities associated with religion, including the administration of religious property
pp. 11–12The Court relied on the principle that property dedicated to a deity belongs to the deity and that a temple functionary does not acquire ownership merely by performing religious duties or managing the property
pp. 10, 13–14It referred to *K. Ramalingam v. State of Tamil Nadu*, [2026 INSC 1144]; *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti*, (2021) 10 SCC 222; and *State of Orissa v. Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee*, (1997) 8 SCC 422, on the distinction between religious functions and secular administration of temple property
pp. 10, 13–14Chapter XI of the Devaswom Manual, including Rule 3(a), requires valuables belonging to the Devaswom—including specified articles made of gold, silver or Panchaloham—to be entered in the appropriate registers
p. 904Reasoning
The Court recognised the Thantri’s authority over ritual matters but distinguished that authority from ownership or control of the deity’s property.
pp. 11–14It held that the ritual prescription in the *Thantra Samuchayam* could inform the procedure for dealing with replaced articles, but, without more, did not establish a proprietary entitlement in the Thantri
pp. 11–14The Board’s accounting and retention of valuables were supported by the Devaswom Manual and the secular administrative framework governing temple property
p. 9The Court also noted that Ext.P2 had been followed for fourteen years and that no sufficient ground for interference had been made out
p. 1505Holding
The Court held that the petitioners had not established a right to receive or appropriate the replaced Vahanam and found no basis to invalidate Ext.P2 on the grounds raised.
p. 15The writ petition was dismissed
p. 15Original Court PDF
M.S.SREERAJKRISHNAN POTTIvsSTATE OF KERALA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
