SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

89. Consequent to the de-recognition of Rulers of Indian States and abolition of Privy Purses by the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, the Parliament enacted 1972 Act. The relevant provisions of 1972 Act are set out in paragraph 19 hereinabove. It sought to amend certain enactments which had granted privileges to former Rulers. One such example pertaining to the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act is set out in detail in said paragraph 19. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for 1972 Act discloses that indefinite continuance of the privileges was found indefensible, but the withdrawal or cessation would not be immediate “to enable the former Rulers to adjust progressively.” Thus, unlike Privy Purses, the termination of which was intended to be immediate and therefore the source for Privy Purses, namely, Article 291 itself was deleted, the deletion of Article 362 by itself would not result in cessation of every privilege or personal right with respect to which “due regard” was had while exercising legislative power in terms of Article 362 before its deletion. The source being in the statutory enactments, despite deletion of Article 362, if the concerned legislations continue to remain in operation, the personal rights or privileges could still be enjoyed. That is precisely why, on the strength of various statutory provisions certain benefits in the form of personal rights or privileges are still available. It is for the concerned legislatures to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, either to terminate the effect and operation of extension of such benefits or allow them to operate or lessen the extent and cause gradual changes as was sought to be undertaken by 1972 Act.

90. Thus, if the provisions of the TC Act to the extent it enacted Chapter III of Part I dealing with “Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple” and related provisions are taken to be an exercise by the concerned Legislature with “due regard” to the assurances and guarantees in covenant or agreements in terms of Article 362 as it existed then even with deletion of Article 362 the concerned provisions would still be operative so long as appropriate steps are not taken by the concerned Legislature.

91. As is evident from the White Paper referred to hereinabove, the assurances and guarantees given in the covenants or agreements entered into with various Rulers normally had four elements; i) that certain sums shall be payable to the Rulers by way of Privy Purses; ii) that certain properties mentioned as private properties of the Ruler would vest in the Ruler in his personal capacity; iii) that succession to the Gaddi would go strictly by the prevalent law and custom; and iv) that personal rights, privileges and dignities enjoyed by the Rulers and in some cases by the members of the family of the Ruler, would continue to be available.

92. Out of the aforesaid four elements, the elements (i) and (iv) were covered by Articles 291 and 362 as they stood before being deleted. The effect of such deletion has been discussed and dealt with. The elements (ii) and (iii) are normal incidents which were not within the scope of said Articles 291 and 362. Despite the Constitution (Twenty Sixth 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. Though concepts such as Ruler or Rulership have ceased to operate, succession to the Gaddi as an incident may still operate. For instance, there could be a sword or any other ceremonial weapon, or a sarpech, or heirloom jewellery, which must go by rule of primogeniture, as against the normal way of succession with regard to other personal properties. All such incidents have not been terminated. The clear example is in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 which uses the expression “jewellery in the possession of any Ruler, not being his personal property” which had been recognized as his “heirloom”. Such items or properties which fall in or are connected strictly with element (iii), may descend along with succession to the Gaddi and by very nature must remain impartible. On the other hand, if normal principles of succession are applied, at any given level of succession, such items or properties recognized as “heirloom” may be required to be shared amongst more than one person and would therefore cease to be impartible.

93. These four elements were covered by Articles XIV, XV, XVII and XVI respectively in the Covenant in the present case. However, SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] apart from the said four assurances, the Covenant also dealt with an additional and important aspect in Article VIII(b). It accepted and acknowledged that the administration with respect to the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties, and the property of the Temple which was also vested in the Ruler of the Covenanting State would continue to be conducted in the manner stipulated therein, subject to the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore. The effect of such Article and the fact that such vesting was not in the capacity as Ruler has already been dealt with. It has also been concluded that the expression “The Ruler of Travancore” was only to locate and describe the person who would be in control and supervision of the administration.

94. In the premises, we must conclude that the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 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. E] Effect of the death of the person who had signed the Covenant as the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore

95. As stated in paragraph 21 hereinabove, Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma who had signed the Covenant as the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore, passed away on 19.07.1991.

96. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the said Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore was duly recognized by the President of India in terms of Article 366(22) of the Constitution as it stood before the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, and that even after the said Amendment, by virtue of amended definition of Ruler under Article 366(22) he continued to fulfil the criteria, and could answer the definition of “Ruler”. It was further submitted that he was thus, the recognized Ruler of Travancore and in that capacity he could, during his lifetime have the benefit of Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act; that after his death, no person or a successor could be recognized as Ruler of Travancore in terms of Article 366(22), as amended; and as such, no person can come within the meaning of expression “Ruler of Travancore” as used in said Chapter III of Part I, and consequently, no person or successor could avail of the benefit of various provisions in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act. On the other hand, the submission on behalf of the appellants as well as the Intervenors supporting them is that for the purposes of said Chapter III of Part I, the definition in Article 366(22) would not be the governing definition. The matter has to be assessed going by the context in which the expression had been used in the Covenant and the TC Act.

97. The discussion in the first and second segments hereinbefore have led us to conclude that as on the day when the Covenant became effective, the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore, was holding the office of Shebait of the Temple, which was not in his official capacity as the Ruler; and that the effect of Sub Article (b) of Article VIII was not to invest any new authority and power in him for the first time because of his official status, but an acknowledgement of the existing authority and power already vested in him. It has also been concluded by us that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” in the Covenant and in the TC Act was only to identify the person, and that the official status of the Ruler of Travancore had no relation with such administration. The principles emanating from various decisions which were considered in the first segment have been culled out by us in para 72 hereinabove. If according to the settled principles, the Shebaitship is like any other heritable property which would devolve in accordance with custom or usage, and that the rule of custom must prevail in all cases, even after the death of the erstwhile Ruler of Travancore in 1991, the Shebaitship of the Temple being unconnected with the official status of the person who signed the Covenant, must devolve by the applicable laws of succession and custom. The proclamation issued on 10.08.1947 as referred to in paragraph 8 hereinabove clearly states the applicable principles of succession. The decision of this Court in Revathiannal13 is also to similar effect. Thus, going by concerned principles of succession and custom, the successor can easily be located.

98. It may be relevant to note here that the TC Act has not defined the expression “Ruler”, and the definition of Ruler under Article 366 (22) of the Constitution is for the purposes of the Constitution whereas the expression “Ruler” as defined under Article 363 of the Constitution in inclusive manner is for the purposes of said Article alone. In Maharaja Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo Kakatiya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh55 the Constitution Bench of this Court had stated:- 55 (1961) 2 SCR 501 SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] “… There is nothing in the provisions of Art. 366(22) which requires a court to recognize such a person as a Ruler for purposes outside the Constitution. …” Similarly, in Rani Ratna Prova Devi vs. State of Orissa and another56, another Constitution Bench of this Court had observed:- “…But it must be remembered that the definitions prescribed by Art. 366 are intended for the purpose of interpreting the articles in the Constitution itself, unless the context otherwise requires, and so, the argument that the definition of the word “Ruler” prescribed by the Act is inconsistent with the definition prescribed by Art. 366 (22), has really no substance or meaning. …”

99. The definitions of ‘Ruler’ in Articles 363 and 366(22) thus do not ipso facto have any application to the provisions of the TC Act, unless the TC Act expressly stipulates so or impliedly refers to such definitions either under Article 363 or under Article 366(22). With the deletion of Articles 291 and 362, the scope of definition in Article 366(22) to find a particular Ruler for conferral of advantages referred to in both the Articles, has ceased to have any significance. However, the concept of the Ruler and Rulership, as discussed hereinabove are still relevant insofar as certain legislations and provisions are concerned. Many of these legislations, normally define the expression themselves, or by reference incorporate the definition as given in Article 363; for example, Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. No such provision was made in the TC Act. The question therefore, is whether the expression “Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act is capable of being understood to include his successors according to custom.

100. A perusal at Sections 15, 62 and Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act clearly shows that these provisions were put on the Statute Book having “due regard” to the Covenant. Since the source of these provisions lies in the Covenant, and there being no definition of “Ruler of Travancore”, or for that matter “Ruler of Cochin”, one has to consider the relevant Articles of the Covenant to assess or understand the significance of the said provisions of the TC Act. Sections 15, 62 and Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act were enacted principally to give effect to Article VIII and generally to give effect to the Covenant. 56 (1964) 6 SCR 301

101. In the earlier segments, we have already concluded that Article VIII had clearly used the expression “now vested in trust in the Ruler” while speaking about the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties, and the properties of the Temple. The Covenant thus, not only acknowledged such status, but in sub-Article ‘b’ of Article VIII, intended to continue the status where such person would continue to exercise control and supervision over the administration of the Temple. This was in the backdrop of the long standing association of the ruling family with the Temple, and the Shebaitship held by the continuous line of Rulers. The expression “Ruler of Travancore” used in the provisions of the TC Act must therefore be understood in the same light. As held earlier, the Covenant never intended to restrict, or do away, with the right of administration already vested in the “Ruler of Travancore”, and such expression was not intended to be confined to the present incumbent, or the person who had signed as the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore. Going by the normal incidents of Shebaitship including the heritability, the context in which the expression was used in Article VIII of the Covenant, and carried in the provisions of the TC Act, it must be held that such expression must include the successors to the person who had signed the Covenant.

102. Apart from the Covenant, the expression “Ruler of Travancore” as used in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act did not depend upon any other enactment or instrument to look for the successor to the Ruler of Travancore, nor is there any express or implied intendment to go by the definition of “Ruler” either under Article 363 or 366(22) of the Constitution. The Covenant speaks of succession, according to law and custom, and that is how the successor must be identified. As Hidayatullah, C.J., opined in paragraphs 53 and 7257 of his Judgment in Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia12 the definition in Article 366(22) as it then stood was merely a key to find a particular Ruler, and that the selection of a successor to the Ruler was required to be worked out under the Covenant. The method of selecting the successor under Article 366(22) as it then stood was not by way of any different formula or principle but was rooted in the concerned law and custom. That being the underlying principle as available from the Covenant, there would not be any difficulty in identifying the successor as and when the occasion arises. 57 Quoted in paragraph 84 hereinabove SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

103. At the same time, if the submission that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” in the TC Act must be made dependent on the recognition, is accepted, it would lead to incalculable inconvenience and prejudice. First, it was never the intention of the Legislature to make such an expression dependent upon any recognition. Secondly, there is no power in the President of India, after the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 to grant any such recognition. Thirdly, the consequence of such an interpretation would mean that the unbroken line of succession to the Shebaitship would stand terminated making the entire Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act meaningless and redundant. Consequently, the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and the properties of the Temple would suffer immense prejudice. Section 15 of the Act which vested the rights, authority and jurisdiction in respect of Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments in the Travancore Board is also inapplicable to Chapter III of Part I. This would result in a complete void. The Legislature could not be ascribed of such an intention. On the other hand, the Legislature must be taken to be well aware that the Shebaitship was heritable, and remained in the royal family for few centuries in an unbroken line of succession. It is for this reason, consistent with the terms of the Covenant, a special dispensation was made in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act.

104. It may be relevant to note that the State in two affidavits filed in the Suits as referred to hereinabove, has taken a clear stand that the Temple is managed by the Travancore Palace. These affidavits were filed by responsible officers of the State, well after the death of the then Ruler in 1991. The understanding on part of the State machinery, or the officials by itself can never be the determining criteria, but that is a relevant factor to be taken note of, as observed by this Court in National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater, Bombay58 and in Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. and others vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd.59

105. In the instant case, since the Shebaitship had vested in the Ruler of Travancore, not in his official capacity, the normal incident of heritability must get attached to the office of such Shebaitship in accordance with governing principles of succession and custom. Therefore, when it comes to the matter concerning the administration of 58 (1969) 1 SCC 541 para 5 59 (1979) 4 SCC 565 para 9 the Temple, Sri Pandavaraga properties and the properties of the Temple, the expression “the Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of TC Act must mean the successor in accordance with the prevalent law and custom. In the process one need not go to the definition of Ruler either under Article 366(22) or under Article 363 of the Constitution of India. Consistent with the principles that have been culled out in para 72 hereinabove, after the death of the person who was in control and supervision of the administration, the heritable interest must devolve in accordance with the customary rights.

106. Further, unless and until the line of succession of the Shebaitship and in-charge of the administration, is completely extinct, there can be no question of escheat as observed by the High Court. In Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar60, this Court had an occasion to consider the issue of escheat in the context of a Public Trust. In that case, after the death of one Mohanlal in whose name patta of the property was secured, the Collector had concluded that the property vested in the State Government by operation of law. Setting aside the decision of the High Court which had affirmed the conclusions of the Collector, this Court observed:- “20. Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been invoked by the Collector. Section 29 provides as follows: “29. Failure of heirs.—If an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government; and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.” Section 29 embodies the principle of escheat. The doctrine of escheat postulates that where an individual dies intestate and does not leave behind an heir who is qualified to succeed to the property, the property devolves on the Government. Though the property devolves on the Government in such an eventuality, yet the Government takes it subject to all its obligations and liabilities. The State in other words does not take the property (at SCC p. 113, para 12) “as a rival or preferential heir of the deceased but as the lord paramount of the whole soil of the country”, as held in 60 (2017) 16 SCC 418 SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh61. This principle from Halsbury’s Laws of England62 was adopted by this Court while explaining the ambit of Section 29. Section 29 comes into operation only on there being a failure of heirs. Failure means a total absence of any heir to the person dying intestate. When a question of escheat arises, the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts the absence of an heir qualified to succeed to the estate of the individual who has died intestate to establish the case. The law does not readily accept such a consequence. In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh63, a Bench of three Judges of this Court formulated the principle in the following observations: “272. It is well settled that when a claim of escheat is put forward by the Government the onus lies heavily on the appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the respondent anywhere in the world. Normally, the court frowns on the estate being taken by escheat unless the essential conditions for escheat are fully and completely satisfied. Further, before the plea of escheat can be entertained, there must be a public notice given by the Government so that if there is any claimant anywhere in the country or for that matter in the world, he may come forward to contest the claim of the State. In the instant case, the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh merely satisfied themselves by appearing to oppose the claims of the respondent-plaintiffs. Even if they succeed in showing that the plaintiffs were not the nearest reversioners of the late Maharaja, it does not follow as a logical corollary that the failure of the plaintiffs’ claim would lead to the irresistible inference that there is no other heir who could at any time come forward to claim the properties.” … … … 22. In Rambir Das v. Kalyan Das64 a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court dealt with a case of shebaitship. Citing the authority of Justice B.K. Mukherjea’s celebrated Tagore Law Lectures with approval, this Court took note of the position of law 61 1992 Supp (3) SCC 108 62 4th Edn., Vol.17, Para 1439 63 (1983) 3 SCC 118 64 (1997) 4 SCC 102 elucidated in the lectures: (Rambir Das case64, SCC p. 105, para 3) “3. … ‘As shebaitship is property, it devolves like any other property according to the ordinary Hindu law of inheritance. If it remains in the founder, it follows the line of founder’s heirs; if it is disposed of absolutely in favour of a grantee, it devolves upon the heirs of the latter in the ordinary way and if for any reason the line appointed by the donor fails altogether, Shebaitship reverts to the family of the founder.’” On the question of escheat, B.K. Mukherjea, J. observes thus: (SCC p. 106, para 3) “3. … ‘As there is always an ultimate reversion to the founder or his heirs, in case the line of shebaits is extinct, strictly speaking no question of escheat arises so far as the devolution of shebaitship is concerned. But cases may be imagined where the founder also has left no heirs, and in such cases the founder’s properties may escheat to the State together with the endowed property. In circumstances like these, the rights of the State would possibly be the same as those of the founder himself, and it would be for it to appoint a shebait for the debutter property. It cannot be said that the State receiving a dedicated property by escheat can put an end to the trust and treat it as secular property.’” In other words, even in a situation where a founder or his line of heirs is extinct, and the properties escheat to the State, the State which receives a dedicated property is subject to the trust and cannot treat it in the manner of a secular property. In fact, we may note, Section 29 expressly stipulates that the State “shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject”. 23. In deciding this case, this Court must also bear in mind the settled principle that unless the founder of a math or religious institution has laid down the principle governing succession to the endowment, succession is regulated by the custom or usage of the institution. This principle was enunciated over six decades ago by this Court in Sital Das v. Sant Ram43, rendered by B.K. Mukherjea, J., speaking for a Bench of four Judges: (AIR p. 609, para 9) SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] “9. In the appeal before us the contentions raised by the parties primarily centre round the point as to whether after the death of Kishore Das, the plaintiff or Defendant 3 acquired the rights of Mahant in regard to the Thakardwara in dispute. The law is well settled that succession to Mahantship of a Math or religious institution is regulated by custom or usage of the particular institution, except where a rule of succession is laid down by the founder himself who created the endowment. As the Judicial Committee laid down [Vide Genda Puri v. Chatar Puri44, IA at p. 105] in one of the many cases on this point: (SCC OnLine PC) ‘… In determining who is entitled to succeed as Mohunt, the only law to be observed is to be found in the custom and practice, which must be proved by testimony, and the claimant must show that he is entitled according to the custom to recover the office and the land and property belonging to it.’ Mere infirmity of the title of the defendant, who is in possession, will not help the plaintiff.” … … … 25. The principle that the law does not readily accept a claim to escheat and that the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts that an individual has died intestate, leaving no legal heir, qualified to succeed to the property, is founded on a sound rationale. Escheat is a doctrine which recognises the State as a paramount sovereign in whom property would vest only upon a clear and established case of a failure of heirs. This principle is based on the norm that in a society governed by the Rule of Law, the court will not presume that private titles are overridden in favour of the State, in the absence of a clear case being made out on the basis of a governing statutory provision. To allow administrative authorities of the State—including the Collector, as in the present case—to adjudicate upon matters of title involving civil disputes would be destructive of the Rule of Law. The Collector is an officer of the State. He can exercise only such powers as the law specifically confers upon him to enter upon private disputes. In contrast, a civil court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all matters involving civil disputes except where the jurisdiction of the court is taken away, either expressly or by necessary implication, by statute. In holding that the Collector acted without jurisdiction in the present case, it is not necessary for the Court to go as far as to validate the title which is claimed by the petitioner to the property. The Court is not called upon to decide whether the possession claimed by the Trust of over forty-five years is backed by a credible title. The essential point is that such an adjudicatory function could not have been arrogated to himself by the Collector. Adjudication on titles must follow recourse to the ordinary civil jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” 107. In the circumstances, we hold that the death of Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma who had signed the Covenant, would not in any way affect the Shebaitship of the Temple held by the royal family of Travancore; that after such death, the Shebaitship must devolve in accordance with the applicable law and custom upon his successor; that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act must include his natural successors according to law and custom; and that the Shebaitship did not lapse in favour of the State by principle of escheat. 108. We must now deal with two decisions on which reliance was placed by Mr. Suresh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 in appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12361 of 2011. A) In Bala Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee and Others vs. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State23 the basic issue was whether Kalika Mataji Temple was a public Trust. The High Court found, inter alia, that by Sanad No.19, Scindias in their capacity as sovereign Rulers had passed on their obligations in respect of the temple to the British Government by a treaty concluded between them in 1860. After considering various decisions on the point, the principles were noted by this Court as under: – “19. A place in order to be a temple, must be a place for public religious worship used as such place and must be either dedicated to the community at large or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship. The distinction between a private temple and public temple is now well settled. In the case of former the beneficiaries are specific individuals; in the latter they are SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] indeterminate or fluctuating general public or a class thereof. Burden of proof would mean that a party has to prove an allegation before he is entitled to a judgment in his favour. The one or the other of the contending parties has to introduce evidence on a contested issue. The question of onus is material only where the party on which it is placed would eventually lose if he failed to discharge the same. Where, however, parties joined the issue, led evidence, such evidence can be weighed in order to determine the issue. The question of burden becomes academic. 20. An idol is a juristic person capable of holding property. The property endowed to it vests in it but the idol has no beneficial interest in the endowment. The beneficiaries are the worshippers. Dedication may be made orally or can be inferred from the conduct or from a given set of facts and circumstances. There need not be a document to evidence dedication to the public. The consciousness of the manager of the temple or the devotees as to the public character of the temple; gift of properties by the public or grant by the ruler or Government; and long use by the public as of right to worship in the temple are relevant facts drawing a presumption strongly in favour of the view that the temple is a public temple. The true character of the temple may be decided by taking into consideration diverse circumstances. Though the management of a temple by the members of the family for a long time, is a factor in favour of the view that the temple is a private temple, it is not conclusive. It requires to be considered in the light of other facts or circumstances. Internal management of the temple is a mode of orderly discipline or the devotees are allowed to enter into the temple to worship at particular time or after some duration or after the headman leaves the temple are not conclusive. The nature of the temple and its location are also relevant facts. The right of the public to worship in the temple is a matter of inference. 21. Dedication to the public may be proved by evidence or circumstances obtainable in given facts and circumstances. In given set of facts, it is not possible to prove actual dedication which may be inferred on the proved facts that place of public religious worship has been used as of right by the general public or a section thereof as such place without let or hindrance. In a public debuttar or endowment, the dedication is for the use or benefit of the public. But in a private endowment when property is set apart for the worship of the family idol, the public are not interested. The mere fact that the management has been in the hands of the members of the family itself is not a circumstance to conclude that the temple is a private trust. In a given case management by the members of the family may give rise to an inference that the temple is impressed with the character of a private temple and assumes importance in the absence of an express dedication through a document. As stated earlier, consciousness of the manager or the devotees in the user by the public must be as of right. If the general public have always made use of the temple for the public worship and devotion in the same way as they do in other temples, it is a strong circumstance in favour of the conclusiveness of public temple. The origin of the temple, when lost in antiquity, it is difficult to prove dedication to public worship. It must be inferred only from the proved facts and circumstances of a given case. No set of general principles could be laid.” This decision lays down the parameters for testing whether a particular temple is a private temple, or a public temple, and reiterates that though the property endowed to it vests in the idol, it has no beneficial interest in it and that the beneficiaries are worshippers. It also acknowledges that in a given case the management of the temple may be by the members of a family. The conclusions drawn by us in the present case, are not in any way inconsistent with this decision and the accepted premise in the present case is that the Temple is a public temple. B) In Deep Chand vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others22, the questions that arose for consideration were concerning the validity of a scheme framed by the State pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. Thereafter, Parliament enacted the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1956, which inserted Chapter IVA into the principal Act. The matter was tested on the principles of repugnancy as also on the anvil of Article 13 of the Constitution. The decision in Deep Chand (supra) thus has no application to the present controversy. SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 109. Having considered the nature of Shebatiship of the Temple and the effect of developments such as the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 and the death of the Ruler who has signed the Covenant, we now turn to the other issues projected by the learned counsel for various parties. I] Bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India i) In para 77 of his opinion in Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia12, Hidayatullah, C.J., had observed that insofar as the guarantees that had found place in legislative measures, the provisions of Article 362 need not be invoked and the dispute could be decided on the basis of the Statutes which were enacted having due regard to the contents of the Covenant, and that such a case would not attract Article 362. To similar effect are the observations made by the Majority Judgment in that decision in the portions quoted hereinabove. The matter was put beyond any doubt in para 60 of the leading judgment in Raghunathrao Ganpatrao14 where the ratio in Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia12 was dealt with, and it was held that the jurisdiction of the Courts would not get excluded where relief was found in a statutory provision enacted in terms of Article 362 of the Constitution. The tenor of the Suits as filed was to agitate that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act ought to be construed in the manner suggested by the plaintiffs. The relief was thus founded on the interpretation suggested by the plaintiffs and therefore would not come within the bar engrafted in Article 363 of the Constitution. The decisions of this Court in Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia12 as well as in Raghunathrao Ganpatrao14 have clearly ruled out the applicability of any such bar. ii) As observed in the judgments of Hidayatullah, C.J., and the majority judgment as well as in the opinion of Hegde, J., in order to get the bar under Article 363 attracted, the dispute must fall under either of two limbs of Article 363. Under the first limb the dispute must arise out of the provisions of the Covenant, whereas under the second limb the dispute must be with respect to the right arising out of a provision of the Constitution relating to the Covenant. The dispute raised in the Suits in the present case, which were sought to be transferred to the High Court, had questioned the authority of the appellant No.1 only from the stand point of the expression “Ruler of Travancore” appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act, and would not get covered under either of the limbs of Article 363 of the Constitution. iii) The reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji of Alwar vs. Union of India and anr.16 was thus completely misplaced. In that case, the Suit was filed by the Ruler of Alwar praying that three properties namely the Secretariat Building, Daulat Khana building and Indra Viman Station be declared as private properties of said Ruler and that State of Rajasthan be ejected from those properties or in the alternative be directed to pay rent to said Ruler. The issue was whether those three properties were accepted to be private properties of the Ruler. Since the Suit directly related to the scope of the description of the property in the concerned documents pertaining to accession, in view of the bar under Article 363 of the Constitution, the Suits were found to be not maintainable. A submission was advanced before this Court that in the “parent” Covenant the property was described to be the private property of the Ruler, and subsequent communications including the one dated 14.09.1949, would not operate as a bar under Article 363 of the Constitution. In this backdrop the matter was dealt with by this Court as under:- “20. Another contention raised by Mr Sharma was that even if the letter dated September 14, 1949 was held to evidence an agreement, it was not hit by the provisions of Article 363 of the Constitution inasmuch as it was an agreement resulting from the Rajasthan Covenant which alone, according to him, was the agreement covered by the article. This contention is also without substance. Article 363 of the Constitution bars the jurisdiction of all courts in any disputes arising out of any agreement which was entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution by any ruler of an Indian State to which the Government of India was a party. The operation of the article is not limited to any “Parent” covenant and every agreement whether it is primary or one entered into in pursuance of the provisions of a preceding agreement would fall within the ambit of the article. Thus the fact that the agreement contained in the letter dated September 14, 1949 had resulted from action taken under the provisions of the Rajasthan Covenant, is no answer to the plea raised on behalf of the respondents that Article 363 of the Constitution is a bar to the maintainability of the two suits, although we may add, that the agreement did not flow directly from the SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] Rajasthan Covenant but was entered into by ignoring and departing from the provisions of clause (2) of Article XII thereof.” iv) In the circumstances, we accept the submissions made on behalf of the State, as well as the concerned respondents, and hold that the bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India would not get attracted in the present matter, and that the submissions in that behalf advanced on behalf of the appellants as well as the intervenors supporting them deserve to be rejected. II] Submissions on the basis of Articles 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution i) The submissions advanced by Mr. Deepak, learned Advocate for the Intervenors in this connection have been noted out in para 42 hereinabove. However, no such submissions were either advanced before the High Court, or in this Court, on behalf of the appellants. No factual foundation was also laid either before the High Court or in the form of pleadings by the appellants before this Court. ii) In the absence of pleadings and requisite issues having been raised by the competing claimants, it would be extremely difficult to enter into said issues so raised by Mr. Deepak, learned Advocate and consider whether the role played by the Royal Family as descendants of Maharaja Aditya and as “Padmanabhadasa” is essential and integral to the very foundation and identity of the Temple. Similarly, the question whether “Parashurama Padhati” being practiced has a distinct identity of its own action would also require complete elaboration and assessment of facts. iii) We therefore accept the submissions of Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the State that in the absence of any claim being raised in a properly instituted proceedings by an identifiable religious denomination, there would be no question of adjudicating or giving a finding regarding violation of any rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and that there would be no occasion to enter into the question whether or not the Temple is of a denominational character as projected, or that the relationship between the “Ruler of Travancore” and the Temple could be said to be an essential or integral part of the Hindu religion in general. iv) In the circumstances we refuse to enter into the questions raised by Mr. Deepak, learned Advocate for the Intervenors in these proceedings. 110. The legal issues having been dealt with, we must now consider what should be the “way forward”. After the decision of the High Court, various orders were passed by this Court, committees were formed and inspections were undertaken. Inventorization has taken place with respect to most of the Kallaras, the antiques and artifacts of the Temple have been digitized, and for the last more than 9 years various steps have been taken under the directions of this Court by all the authorities. The State has also expended considerable amounts as stated in the tabular chart referred to in para 44 hereinabove. i) Consistent with the stand that the Temple is a public Temple and that no remuneration at any stage was derived in the past or would be aimed at in future, a suggestion was made on behalf of the appellants in the form of a Note in response to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State. In the said Note, which is set out in detail in Paragraph 47 hereinabove, the appellants have suggested the composition of an Administrative Committee, and of an Advisory Committee. Broadly, it is suggested that the Administrative Committee be formed comprising of five Members, the Chairperson being a retired Indian Administrative Service Officer of the rank of Secretary to Government of Kerala; the other four members being (i) a nominee of the Trustee; (ii) the Chief Thantri of the Temple; (iii) a nominee of the Government of Kerala; and (iv) a Member to be nominated by the Ministry of Culture, Government of India. In terms of para 8 of the Note, the Trustee that is to say the Manager or Shebait of the Temple would be guided by the advice given by the Advisory Committee. ii) On the other hand, the suggestion made on behalf of the State is to follow the model statutorily enacted for Guruvayoor Devaswom, and thus the Managing Committee would be of eight Members comprising of two ex-officio members, namely, Padmanabhadasa and the Senior Thantri; while the other six Members would be nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers; one of them being Member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes while one being a woman, and the other being a representative of the employees of the Temple. SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 111. It may be noted here that the following Committees were constituted from time to time by this Court. By Order dated 02.05.2011, two observers were appointed for the purposes of inventorization. By Order dated 21.07.2011, an Expert Committee was appointed for the purposes of Inventory, Conservation and Security. By same order, Overseeing Committee was also appointed to supervise and guide the working of the Expert Committee. The Order dated 13.02.2013 refers to the Temple Committee in terms of Section 20 of the TC Act to advise the Ruler of Travancore. By Order dated 11.12.2013, Conservation and Restoration Committee was appointed for Structural Renovation and Restoration. Since the Executive Officer proceeded on leave, an Interim Administrative Committee was appointed vide Order dated 24.04.2014 for day to day functions relating to the Temple. By Orders dated 09.05.2017 and 04.07.2017, apart from reconstituting the Conservation Committee, a Selection Committee for Sreekovil was also appointed to select the suitable person having requisite knowledge. These Committees were constituted at the interim stage of the proceedings in this Court. 112. We may, at this stage, also refer to some of the Reports submitted by the Administrative Committee appointed by this Court:- i) In the Report dated 05.01.2018, it was reported that taking advantage of the fact that an ad hoc committee was at the helm of the affairs of the Temple, some of the occupants of the structures on East Nada, North Gate and Utsava Madom Building continued to be or were in illegal and unauthorized occupation and that requisite action to resume the possession of said structures from such occupants ought to be undertaken. ii) In the Report dated 01.01.2020, it was stated that from 04.01l.2019 to 20.12.2019, the offerings made by the devotees visiting the Temple, in the ‘Kanikka’ amounted to Rs.5,68,96,260/- (Rupees Five Crores Sixty Eight Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Only). iii) The Report dated 27.05.2020, under the signature of the District Judge, referred to the earlier Resolution dated 13.06.2017 and the direction issued by this Court in its Order dated 04.07.2017 requesting the State to nominate a panel of three officers from the Indian Audit and Accounts Service (IA &AS) to oversee the audit and accounts of the Temple and submit quarterly reports to the Administrative Committee. The Report stated:- “I may also report that the Administrative Committee is perfectly in the darkness regarding the financial position and accounts of the Temple. Different District Judges discharged duties as Chairmen of the Administrative Committee during different periods since the inception of the Committee as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So far, the respective Executive Officers, in charge of the financial matters of the Temple, have not produced either the budget proposals or the statement of accounts before the Administrative Committee. … … … The Executive Officer informed me that as the Principal Accountant General raised queries on the remuneration of the serving IAAS Officers and the State Government was not in a position to meet the expenses, the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court could not be complied with. Subsequently, on 18.09.2017, the Administrative Committee resolved the following:- ‘(i) The service of an IA & AS Officer is required to oversee the audit conducted by the Internal Auditor and Statutory Auditor. (ii) The service of a serving IA & AS Officer is required on foreign service terms. (iii) In addition, the services of two non IA & AS Officers, who are in service, is also required on foreign service terms to assist the IA & AS Officer.’ SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] The Committee also authorized the Executive Officer to take up the matter with the Government and to bring the developments to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So far, the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to appoint an IA & AS Officer to oversee the internal audit and statutory audit has not been complied with. Still the Committee is in darkness on the financial position and accounts of the Temple.” 113. The provisions of the TC Act with respect to the administration of the Temple are clear:- a) Under Section 18(2), the administration shall be conducted. “Subject to the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore, by an Executive Officer appointed by him.” b) “Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Committee” composed of three members nominated by the Ruler of Travancore in terms of Section 20 is to advise the Ruler of Travancore in the discharge of his functions. The Statute has thus vested the power of appointing the Executive Officer and of forming the Advisory Committee, in the Ruler of Travancore. In the Note, the appellants have stated:- (i) “The Trustee shall delegate his powers of administration under Section 18(2)” to the Administrative Committee which “shall administer the Temple through an Executive Officer to be appointed by the Committee”. (ii) On all policy matters, the Trustee shall be guided by the advice of the Advisory Committee. 114. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival suggestions, the composition of the Committees as suggested by the appellants deserves acceptance, especially in light of the conclusions arrived by us that the Managership or the Shebaitship of the Temple continues with the Family. As against the administration contemplated by Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act in the hands of the Ruler of Travancore in absolute terms, the course now suggested by the appellants is quite balanced. The Composition of the Administrative Committee as suggested is broad based and would not be loaded in favour or against the Trustee. However, considering the fact that the present interim Administrative Committee headed by the District Judge is in seisin for the last more than five years, and various District Judges as Chairpersons of the Committee conducted themselves quite well, in our view, a minor change in the Administrative Committee suggested by the appellants in their Note is called for. Instead of a retired Indian Administrative Service Officer of the rank of Secretary to the Government of Kerala as the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee, in the interest of justice, the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram shall be the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee. Needless to say that the present Chairperson of the Interim Administrative Committee shall continue to be the Chairperson so long as he holds the post of the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The composition of the Advisory Committee will ensure that the administration of the Temple is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. 115. We, therefore, accept the suggestions made by the appellants in their Note adverted to in detail in paragraph 47 hereinabove with regard to the constitution of the Administrative Committee and the Advisory Committee subject to the modification with respect to the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee as stated in the preceding paragraph. The appellant No.1 shall file an appropriate affidavit of undertaking within four weeks of this judgment in terms of paragraph 1 of the Note and also agreeing to the modification as stated above. The affidavit of undertaking so filed shall be binding on the appellant No.1 and all his successors. Within four weeks of filing of the affidavit of undertaking, both the Committees shall be constituted and become functional. The Administrative Committee shall immediately appoint the Executive Officer. Upon the constitution of the Administrative Committee, the Interim Administrative Committee appointed in terms of the Order dated 24.04.2014 shall cease to operate. In terms of the Note submitted by the appellants the powers of “the Ruler of Travancore” under Section 18(2) of the TC Act shall stand delegated to the Administrative Committee while the Advisory Committee shall be deemed to be the Committee constituted in terms of Section 20 of the TC Act. It is made clear that all the members including the Chairpersons of the Administrative Committee and the Advisory Committee must be Hindus and fulfil the requirements in Section 2(aa) of the TC Act. SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] All the other Committees constituted in terms of various orders passed by this Court shall continue for four months, and it shall be upto the Advisory Committee to consider whether the services of those Committees are required or not. It must also be stated that the present security arrangements as deployed by the State Government shall be continued, but the expenses in that behalf shall be borne by the Temple hereafter. 116. The Administrative Committee and the Advisory Committee shall do well to discharge all their functions including performance of the worship of the deity, maintenance of its properties, diligently and in the best interest of the Temple, and provide adequate and requisite facilities to the worshippers; and more particularly:- (a) Preserve all treasures and properties endowed to Sree Padmanabhaswamy and those belonging to the Temple. (b) Protect all tenanted properties and take appropriate measures to ensure reasonable returns from such tenanted properties. (c) Ensure that all rituals and religious practices are performed in accordance with the instructions and guidance of the Chief Thantri of the Temple and according to custom and traditions. In temporal matters, the Committees shall be guided by the advice given by the Chief Thanthri. The designation of the Chief Thanthri shall be done in accordance with the customs and traditions. (d) Shall take appropriate steps to return to the State the amounts expended by the State Government as catalogued in the Chart in paragraph No.44 hereinabove. (e) All the income accruing to the Temple, as well as the offerings made by the worshippers, shall be expended in the following manner: (i) To improve the facilities for the worshippers; and (ii) For such religious and charitable purposes as the Advisory Committee may deem appropriate; and (iii) In investments that will fetch reasonable returns and ensure that the properties of the Temple are completely safe and secure. (f) Recover and retrieve any property or funds of the Temple which have been put to misuse or have been in unauthorized occupation or misappropriated. (g) Shall order audit for the last 25 years as suggested by the learned Amicus Curiae. The audit shall be conducted by a firm of reputed Chartered Accountants. The Advisory Committee shall also consider what further steps need to be taken for the preservation of the Temple properties, both movable and immovable. (h) Take appropriate steps for conservation of the Temple and its precincts, as well as for improvement of all the facilities. (i) Shall consider whether Kallara B is to be opened for the purpose of inventorization. The interim orders dated 27.11.2014 and 04.07.2017 passed by this Court had recorded that Kallara B was not opened, and it was directed that inventorization with respect to said Kallara B be undertaken only after obtaining express orders from this Court. We deem it appropriate to leave this issue to the best judgement and discretion of the Committees. (j) Conduct all the obligations which from time to time were bestowed on various Committees by this Court including that of the Selection Committee for Sreekovil. (k) Shall file Reports in this Court by the second week of December, 2020 stating all the developments in brief till then. The next Report shall be filed after the accounts for the year ending 31.03.2021 are audited. (l) Shall file the audited accounts and the Balance Sheet with the office of the Accountant General for the State, every year. 117. In light of the specific submission made by the appellants, the appellant No.1 and his successors shall not be entitled to draw any remuneration for his or their services as the Manager or Trustee. The Executive Officer appointed by the Administrative Committee shall be entitled to a modest and reasonable remuneration to be fixed by the Administrative Committee. SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 118. Civil Appeals thus, stand allowed subject to above directions, without any order as to costs. 119. Writ Petition (Civil) No.518 of 2011 was filed seeking following principal relief: “Give directions to the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India to evolve and implement a mechanism whereby the treasures of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple can be preserved intact, and at the same time be put to proper and profitable use without possibilities of corrupt dealings, erosion and wastage……” In view of the aforementioned directions, nothing further is required to be done in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 120. Contempt Petition No.493 of 2019 was filed submitting, inter alia, that certain statements were made by the Temple Guard; and that the then Executive Officer was protecting said Temple Guard. Considering the nature of allegations, we see no reason to take cognizance of the same and the Contempt Petition is dismissed. 121. In the end, we must express our sincere gratitude for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, and also for his invaluable suggestions and guidance. We are also grateful to all the persons and members of various Committees who diligently discharged their obligations in answer to the suggestions made by this Court from time to time. Ankit Gyan Matters disposed of.