PRAYAR GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Deva' means God and 'Swom' means Ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. Devaswom Board is a socio-religious trust constituted to manage the property of God comprising of Members nominated by the Government. The scramble for being a nominated Member of the Devaswom Board has given rise to these two writ petitions.

(2.) WP(C).No.36695/2017 has been filed by the President and a Member of the Travancore Devaswom Board ('the Board' for short) who were originally appointed for a period of three years from 12.11.2015. Section 10 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 ('the Act' for short) has now been amended cutting short their period of office from three years to two years. The amendment was by virtue of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 ('the Ordinance' for short) which is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioners contend that the amendment was without reference to the Covenant entered into by the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin ('the Covenant' for short). It is their case that the Covenant provides for the constitution of the Board which is 'an existing law' saved by the Constitution of India under Article 372(1) thereof. The petitioners assert that the amendment if any could only be with the concurrence of the Union of India which has not been secured and that the oblique motive is to cut short their tenure. It is submitted that the tenure appointment of the petitioners cannot be cut short abruptly and that the Ordinance is a fraud on the power vested in the Government.

(3.) WP(C).No.36983/2017 is a pro bono publico by a devotee of Lord Ayyappa in Sabarimala questioning the authority of respondents 3 and 4 therein who have now been nominated as the President and Member of the Board. The petitioner points out that the very nomination of the Members to the Board is bad inasmuch as only seven Hindu members among the Council of Ministers supported it. The subsequent ratification by all the thirteen Hindu members of the Council of Ministers does not regularise the earlier illegal nomination by only seven Hindu members. Moreover only a Member nominated to the Board could be nominated as its President in terms of Section 11 of the Act whereas the notifications show otherwise. The fact that the notification appointing the President has preceded the notification appointing Members to the Board is highlighted for the issue of a writ of quo warranto against the appointees.