Supreme Court orders status quo in challenge to Kerala High Court order invalidating Guruvayur Devaswom contribution to CM Relief Fund

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered status quo and issued notice on an appeal filed by the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee (GDMC) challenging a Kerala High Court judgment that had invalidated the ₹5 crore-donation made by the Devaswom towards the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) [Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and anr vs Bijesh Kumar and ors]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit with Justices Ajay Rastogi and S Ravindra Bhat asked whether it is wrong to donate the money received from devotees to the CMDRF. "Pending further consideration, the parties shall maintain status quo", the order reads. The notice was made returnable on October 10. .The Kerala High Court had, in December 2020, held that the GDMC has no authority to contribute amounts from Devaswom funds to the CMDRF or to any other government agency. In so ruling, a bench of Justices A Hariprasad, Anu Sivaraman and MR Anitha had set aside a judgment that had upheld the validity of Guruvayur Devaswom Board contributions to the Kerala Chief Minister’s fund.The Court came to the conclusion based on interpretation of Sections 27 and 21 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978.The ruling had come after various petitioners had assailed the Guruvayur Devaswom Board’s decision to set up darshan boxes etc. for contributions to the CMDRF in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.Subsequently, a review petition came to be filed against the same. A full bench of the High Court had, in May this year, dismissed the review petitions. The main contention in the review plea was that the judgment committed an error by holding that the scope of Section 27(c) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act cannot be widened.Section 27(c) allows the committee to incur expenses towards medical relief, water supply and other sanitary arrangements for the worshippers and the pilgrims and construction of building for their accommodation.They argued that the geographical proximity of the pilgrims had no significance and the benefits provided by the temple ought to lean in favor of others also.Rejecting this contention, the Bench instead held that the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee is empowered to do only those things as may be conducive to the efficient management of the affairs of Devaswom and the convenience of worshippers coming to visit the temple.Interpreting Section 27(c), the Bench concluded that the Section merely stipulates providing a convenient accommodation to the worshippers when they visit the temple to offer prayers.This led to the present appeal before the apex court..The appeal, filed through advocate Jishnu ML, states that the High Court's ruling was was arrived at 'despite the voluminous material brought on record' regarding the tenets and philosophy of Lord Krishna towards alleviating misery, suffering and poverty, among others. "If the narrow interpretation adopted by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court is accepted various donations made by Temples and other religious organisations to CMDRF of various states and PM Care fund will be questioned. A large number of temples are already contributed crores of rupees to various CMDRF for fighting the Covid-19 pandemic," it has been contended. Further, it is the argument that the High Court had erred in equating the petitioner with the temple's trustees, even as the judgment proceeds by holding that the properties of the temple vest in the deity. The petitioner is is merely vested with the administration, control and management of the Devaswom, it has been argued. "The contribution has been made in the wake of flood to grant medical relief and sanitary assistance to the worshippers. The word "worshipers" does not mean "Pilgrims" alone. Any person who has reverence in his mind to the Lord Guruvayoorappa is a worshipper. During a disaster in the nature of a massive flood, where worshipers of Sree Krishna of Guruvayur were stranded and left homeless, the Committee was well within its powers to give medical aid, sanitary facilities etc."Pertinently, the plea states that the discharge of the temple's duties under Section 27 of the Act can only be towards secular activities that do no exclude other communities. "It is also a well known and accepted version that "Hinduism" is a way of life and is a very progressive and inclusive religion. Secularism is one of the main ingredients of the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Any interpretation of a Statute can only be made only in the background of the Constitutional scheme. A restrictive or non-secular interpretation of the statute has to be avoided.".Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram and R Venkatramani appeared for the appellants. [Read order]