---

Current Affairs Brain Booster for UPSC & State PCS Examination

---

Topic: Padmanabhaswamy Temple Case

Why in News?

• Reversing the 2011 Kerala High Court decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Travancore royal family to manage the property of deity at Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram (Sri Marthanda Varma vs. State of Kerala).

The Case

• The central legal question was whether Utradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma, the younger brother of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the last Ruler of Travancore, could claim to be the “Ruler of Travancore” after the death of the ruler in 1991. ( The court examined this claim within the limited meaning of that term according to the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (TCHRI Act) to claim ownership, control and management of the ancient Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple.
• The Supreme Court, in Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple case, has dealt with the effect of the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 - which abolished privy purses- on the term 'Ruler of Travancore' in provison to Section 18(2) of TCHRI Act. ( The court held that the constitutional abolition, did not in any way impact or affect the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and the properties of the Temple, which continued to be under the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore.
• All the temples which were under the control and management of the erstwhile Princely States of Travancore and Cochin were under the control of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards before 1947.
• However, as per the Instrument of Accession signed between the princely states and the Government of India, since 1949, the administration of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple was “vested in trust” in the Ruler of Travancore. The state of Kerala was carved out in 1956 but the temple continued to be managed by the erstwhile royals.
• This appeal was against the 2011 judgment of the Kerala High Court, which directed the state government to take over the management of the Padmanabhaswamy temple on the grounds that the Travancore ex-royals lost control over its management after the death of the last ruler in 1991.4. Temple History
• The Padmanabhaswamy temple is located in Thiruvananthapuram (The City of Lord Ananta), the capital of Kerala. It was built by Raja Marthanda Varma (Ruler of Travancore) in 1731.
• The temple is built in an intricate fusion of the Chera style and the Dravidian style of architecture, featuring high walls, and a 16th-century gopura.
• Temple is one of 108 Divya Desams (holy abodes of Vishnu) - principal centres of worship of the deity in Vaishnavism.
• The main deity in the Shree Padmanabhaswamy Temple is of Lord Vishnu in the 'Anantha Shayana' posture (reclined posture of eternal yoga) on Adi Shesha or king of all serpents.

Abolition of Privy Purses

• By the Constitution 26th Amendment Act, 1971, the privy purses, privileges and other special rights of the erstwhile rulers of Indian states were abolished by deleting Articles 291 and 362 and by incorporating Article 366(22) in the Constitution. The challenge against it was repelled by the Supreme Court vide judgment rendered by the constitution bench on February 4, 1993 in Raghunathrao Ganapatrao v Union of India.
• The Kerala government maintained before the Supreme Court that with the abolition of the concept of Ruler by the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971, the shebaitship of the royal family ceased to have any effect.
• The 26th Amendment Act deleted Articles 291 and 362 and inserted Article 363A which expressly stipulates inter alia that any person who was recognised to be the ruler of an Indian state or his successor, shall, cease to be recognised as such ruler or successor, and all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purses stand extinguished.
• Despite the 26th Amendment Act, 1971, the private properties of the ruler would continue to be available for normal succession and devolution in accordance with the law and custom, the Supreme Court held. But the court also accepted the royal family’s claim that it no longer considered the temple as its private property, and that it only sought shebaitship. Thus, temple is not the private property of the Royal family, they are just trusted with their management.