Temple administration may be statutorily regulated as a secular function while religious affairs remain protected from interference.

The Guruvayoor Devaswom Act's nomination scheme was construed as not requiring the nominating Ministers themselves to be believers in God or temple worship, because the statute did not impose that limitation and reading it in would make the provision unworkable. The Court also treated temple administration as a secular matter capable of statutory regulation, while preserving religious, ritual and spiritual functions from interference. Since the Act protected the denominational character of the managing body and no pre-existing constitutional right to control administration through an electoral college or similar arrangement was shown, Section 4 was upheld as consistent with Articles 25 and 26.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "Hindu" in Section 4 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 required the nominating Ministers to be believers in God and temple worship. (ii) Whether Section 4 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "Hindu" in Section 4 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 required the nominating Ministers to be believers in God and temple worship.

Analysis: The expression "Hindu" was not defined in the Act, and the statutory scheme itself required that the members nominated to the Managing Committee must be persons having interest in the temple and must profess Hindu religion and believe in temple worship. The Court held that the legislature had deliberately not restricted the word "Hindu" to persons who personally professed temple worship as a qualification for nominating Ministers. Reading such a limitation into the provision would make the Act unworkable and would add a restriction not found in the text.

Conclusion: The expression "Hindu" in Section 4 did not require the nominating Ministers themselves to be believers in God and temple worship; that contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 4 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that management and administration of a temple are secular matters and may be regulated by law, while religious, ritual and spiritual functions remained protected and were kept outside interference under the statutory scheme. The Act preserved the role of the Thanthri in religious matters and ensured that only persons believing in temple worship could be appointed to the Managing Committee. Article 26 protects existing denominational rights, and no pre-existing right of the devotees to control the administration through an electoral college or nomination by worshipping members was established. The Court also treated prior observations and concessions to the contrary as non-binding on the State and inconsistent with the earlier controlling decision.

Conclusion: Section 4 was held not to violate Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme governing Guruvayoor Devaswom management was upheld as a valid regulation of secular administration without impermissible interference in religious affairs.

Ratio Decidendi: Temple administration is a secular function that may be regulated by statute, and Article 26 protects only pre-existing denominational rights; a nomination scheme will not be invalid merely because the nominating authority is not itself part of the denomination, so long as the statute preserves the denominational character of the managing body and religious affairs remain outside state interference.

---