2003 (8) TMI 470 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Limits PIL Scope in Temple Management, Emphasizes Statutory Adherence

Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & Anr. Versus CK. Rajan & Others

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in temple management, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions. It held that ... Movable and Immovable properties and endowments - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. No doubt in our mind, having regard to the fact that special treatment has been accorded to the temple by the State Legislature, carry out its activities in true letter and spirit thereof. The State and the statutory functionaries would be well advised to give full credence to the tenets and practices subject of course to the provisions of the statute. The State should furthermore make all endeavours to see that the sentiments of the devotees are respected. Issues Involved:1. Scope and ambit of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in temple management.2. Relevant provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978.3. Genesis and maintainability of the PIL.4. Actions and findings of the High Court.5. Submissions and arguments by the parties.6. Scope of Public Interest Litigation.7. Conclusion and directions by the Supreme Court.Detailed Analysis:1. Scope and Ambit of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Temple Management:The primary question in these appeals is the scope and ambit of a PIL concerning the management of a temple governed by statutory provisions. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a PIL for the management of the Guruvayoor Temple and the extent of judicial intervention permissible in such matters.2. Relevant Provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978:The Act governs the administration of the Guruvayoor Temple. Key provisions include:- Section 6: Dissolution and supersession of the Committee by the Government for incompetence or default.- Section 17: Powers and duties of the Administrator.- Section 18: Establishment schedule for officers and employees.- Section 23: Accounts and audit procedures.- Section 33: Government's power to call for records and pass orders.- Section 38: Rule-making power of the Government.The Act is a self-contained code providing comprehensive guidelines for temple management.3. Genesis and Maintainability of the PIL:The PIL originated from a letter dated 3.2.1993, highlighting irregularities and mismanagement in the temple. The High Court treated the letter as an original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and appointed a Commissioner to investigate. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court proceeded with the matter on merit, and the question of maintainability had become academic as parties had already addressed the merits.4. Actions and Findings of the High Court:The High Court, upon considering the Commissioner's reports, found various irregularities in temple management. It issued directions for remedial measures, including vigilance inquiries, quality checks, and administrative reforms. The High Court lamented the low levels of administration and hoped for improvement.5. Submissions and Arguments by the Parties:- The appellant and the State of Kerala argued that the High Court erred in not deciding the maintainability of the PIL as a preliminary issue.- They contended that the High Court assumed jurisdiction akin to the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952, and Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1987, which was not permissible in a PIL.- The respondents argued that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction to ensure proper temple management and that the PIL was justified to address the grievances of devotees.6. Scope of Public Interest Litigation:The Supreme Court discussed the evolution and scope of PIL, emphasizing that it should be used to protect the rights of disadvantaged sections and ensure probity in public life. However, it cautioned against its misuse for private disputes or publicity. The Court reiterated that PIL should not transgress into areas governed by statutory provisions unless there is a failure of statutory functionaries to perform their duties.7. Conclusion and Directions by the Supreme Court:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions that bypassed the statutory framework of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act. It held that the High Court should not have assumed the role of the executive and should have allowed the statutory authorities to perform their functions. The Court expunged adverse remarks against the appellant and directed the State to consider the High Court's suggestions, implementing those feasible and recording reasons for any non-implementation. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.Summary:The Supreme Court examined the scope of PIL in the context of temple management, emphasizing the need to respect statutory provisions. It concluded that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by bypassing the statutory framework and assuming executive functions. The Court expunged adverse remarks against the appellant and directed the State to consider the High Court's suggestions, ensuring compliance with statutory duties. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.