A History Of The Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple Case For Those In A Hurry

In a huge respite to devotees, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the erstwhile royal family of Travancore to manage the affairs of the Sri Padmanabhaswamy temple in Kerala.

Devotees were seen shedding tears and distributing sweets in front of the temple that dates back to the sixth century, as reported.

The reasons for such celebrations was that this was an appeal pending in the apex court for the past nine years.

The royal family had filed an appeal against a 2011 judgement of the Kerala High Court that ordered the reins of the temple to be handed over to the State government.

The family had suggested the constitution of an administrative committee and an advisory body which the court approved as being a ‘balanced’ approach which did not rest undue powers in the hands of the trustee, like provided for by the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act (TC Act).

The administrative committee shall have the District Judge of Thiruvananthapuram, one member nominated by the trustee, one member nominated by the government of Kerala, one member nominated by the Union Ministry of Culture and the Chief Tantri of the temple. But all these members will have to be Hindus.

The royal family thanked everyone who had been a part of this fight, in a video statement today. “Please do not consider this as the victory of a royal family member. We see it only as a blessing of Lord Padmanabhaswamy on all his devotees. We thank all those people who waited and suffered with us all these years. May the Lord protect everyone,” said a member of the royal family, Aswathi Thirunal Gowri Lakshmi Bayi.

Here is a brief timeline of this case.

2009: The prelude to this case begins when an IPS officer turned lawyer, T P Sunderrajan, filed a public interest litigation (PIL), in response to a statement made by the royal family's heir.

The royal family heir, Utharadom Thirunal Marthanda Varma is said to have claimed that the temple property belonged to the royal family. Some sections of devotees objected and filed suits to ensure that the temple property is not ‘diverted by the royals’. Among these, Sunderrajan's PIL was based on the Accession Agreement signed between the kings of Travancore and the government of India in 1949.

According to the Accession Agreement though, the administration of the temple vested with the “ruler of Travancore”.

Article VII of the Agreement provided that administration of the Padmanabhaswamy temple shall be conducted, subject to the control and supervision of the ruler of Travancore, by an executive officer appointed by the ruler.

In January 2011, the Kerala High Court ordered that the State take over the control of the temple from the trust headed by the royal family. It ruled that the rights of family ceased to exist with the death of the last ruler of the Travancore in 1991.

Thus, the State could take over the administration of the temple. The High Court ruled that there was no ‘ruler of Travancore’ as the title was not a ‘status that could be acquired through succession’.

It hence ruled that Marthanda Verma could not step into the shoes of the erstwhile ‘king’.

This got the apex court to stay the Kerala High court directives. It also ordered a detailed inventory of the valuables and other objects held by the temple in its various vaults.

The wealth in five of the six vaults that were opened is estimated to be worth around Rs 90,000 crore.

The opening of the sixth vault, the Kalara B, which had a complicated locking system in place, was discussed. It was finally concluded that the court would consider the question only after the documentation and other procedures pertaining the wealth of the other five vaults were completed.

2012: The court appointed senior advocate Gopal Subaramaniam as amicus curiae.

2013: The petitioner Utharadom Thirunal Marthanda Varma passed away leaving his legal heirs as substitutes.

2014: The amicus curiae submitted his report in April after which the Supreme Court handed over the management of the temple to a four-member committee headed by the district judge, by way of an interim order.

The royal family challenged the report of the amicus curiae in November in the Supreme Court. The apex court accepted some of the suggestions of the report.

2017: The issue of the unopened vault which was said to have ‘mystical energy’ and hence was ‘not be opened’ was raised in the Supreme Court, with the amicus curiae dismissing such claims as ‘useless suspicion generated about’ its content.

While issuing various orders pertaining to the security and the repair of the temple etc, the court said it would look into the matter of the opening of the sixth vault later. The royal family and the temple priests had been against the opening of the vault, which the royals claim in their affidavit as one that has never been opened by them.

The Pinarayi Vijayan government back then too had insisted that a detailed audit of its inventory as the only way of “securing the temple’s wealth”.

On 4 July 2017, the court order had said that the opening of the vault would only be looked into after the final hearing regarding the administration of the temple.

2019: In January, the final hearing of the case by a bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indu Malhotra began.

2020: Finally today after nine long years, the court ruled in favour of the Travancore royal family and upheld its rights.

The court underlined that the death of the Travancore ruler who signed the Covenant does not affect shebait-ship of the erstwhile royal family.

The 300-page verdict also states that the current administration committee, headed by the district judge, will continue until the new one is set up. And the new committee, all members of which will be Hindu, will decide on whether the inventory of the temple’s second vault or vault B, which is reported to hold valuable treasures, needs to be taken.

As for all the wealth on which Padmanabhaswamy rests and which is said to be the primary reason the State wants to gain control of this ancient temple, the royal family member Aswathi Thirunal Gowri Lakshmi Bayi has reiterated today, that “all the riches of the temple belong only to God. We have no rights in the riches”.