Kerala High Court finds appointment of CPI(M), DYFI persons as temple board members to be illegal

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the appointment of persons who are actively involved in politics, irrespective of whther they hold any official post in a political party, are ineligible to be appointed as non-heriditory trustees in a temple administered by the Malabar Devaswom Board [Anantha Narayanan & Anr. v Malabar Devaswom Board & Ors.]. .A division bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar made the observation on the basis of the clauses of the notification issued by the Malabar Devaswom Board inviting applications to the post. The bench opined that a very technical and narrow definition of the word politician cannot be accepted in the context of the notification since it disqualifies persons who are active politicians or hold an official post in a political party."The terms are used disjunctively. So persons who are actively involved in politics, whether or not they hold any post in a political party are ineligible", the bench said.The bench elaborated on its reasoning for arriving at this conclusion saying,"It is a matter of common knowledge that the functioning of a political party and selection/election of its office bearers is not similar to public employment. Whichever be the political party, one who is actively involved in the activities of that political party alone is ordinarily selected/elected as an office bearer.".The order was passed on a plea moved challenging the appointment of four persons as non-hereditary trustees of the Sree Pookkottukalikavu Temple.A Board of Trustees constituted as per the orders of the Area Committee under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 manages the affairs of the temple. The four appointees, who were arrayed as respondents in this case, were appointed as non-hereditary trustees in February 2021. .Two reasons stated by the petitioners as disqualifications for their appointment were that three of them are office bearers of political parties and the other one is accused in some criminal cases. .The first two appointees admitted that they were members of the CPI(M) (Communist Party of India (Marxist)) but pointed out that they were appointed as office bearers of the party only after they were appointed as non-hereditary trustees. They further submitted that they had resigned from their posts on the temple board once they became office bearers of the CPI(M). The third appointee contended that he is an office bearer of the DYFI (Democratic Youth Federation of India) but since it is not a political party, he is not disqualified from being a non-hereditary trustee.The fourth appointee contended that the criminal cases registered against him were false and that unless he is convicted in any of those cases, he is not disqualified from his post on the board of trustees. .The Court went through the notification issued by the Malabar Devaswom Board inviting applications to the post of non-hereditary trustees of the temple and found that the appointment of the three appointees who were active in politics was illegal. .To consider the case of the third appointee who was an office bearer of the DYFI, the court also went through the Constitution of the DYFI and noted that it stated that a DYFI member can work in any political party. Pertinently, the Court observed that this is not sufficient to hold that the DYFI does not have any political colour."Whether or not it has any affiliation to any particular political party, what is evident from the (DYFI) constitution is that the area of activities of DYFI is politics and related activities. As such it cannot be said that the activities of DYFI are non political", the court said. .As far as the case of the fourth appointee was concerned, the Court noted that the notification disqualifies persons who are convicted for more than 6 months for offences involving moral turpitude. However, it noted that another clause in the notification says that appointees shall be idol worshippers and persons having interest in the advancement of the temple. "A person having reverence and adoration for a deity can alone be treated as a worshipper. A person facing criminal prosecution for an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be considered a true worshipper of that standard required for a person to be appointed as a trustee in a Temple", the court said as it found his appointment to be improper as well. .However, since the appointees in the present case only had a few days left to occupy their posts and because the petitioners did not avail any statutory remedies sooner, the Court refused to quash the order appointing them. It instead directed the Malabar Devaswom Board to ensure that all subsequent appointments to temples under its control are made in line with the observations made by the court in the present judgment. .[Read Judgment]