The ‘royal’ family has NO authority to deal with Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple

A reasoned response of the Kerala unit of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), proposing a publicly controlled administrative set-up on the lines of that at the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayur for the Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple and their view that the shrine must be freed from the trust controlled by the Travancore royal family, had now unleashed a new storm of controversy pertaining to the Temple. Many had criticized it as an encroachment up on the right for the independent functioning and existence of this ancient temple, traditionally owned by the Travancore Royal family. It is also mooted that it is a private temple, the presiding deity of which is the family deity of the Travancore royal family. As, a lot of baffling propositions and hypothesis are being aired, with regard to this controversy, it will be worth to consider the question that whether the Sree Padmanabha Swami Temple and its treasures are the family properties of the erstwhile Royal Family of Travancore.

It is interesting to analyze how the Temple came into the hands of the Travancore royal family. Though the origin of the Temple is shrouded in antiquity and different versions are stated by different authors, it could be safely dated back to the 8^th Century. However, for over 200 years prior to the taking over of management of the Temple and the State by Anizham Thirunal Marthandavarma, the Temple was under the control of "Ettarayogam" (group of eight and a half) consisting of seven Pottis (Brahmins), one Nair chieftain and the King, who had only half a vote, whereas all others had one vote each. While the committee of Potties controlled the Temple, the properties of the Temple were managed by Ettuveettil Pillamars, the 8 Nair chieftains belonging to eight big families spread over in different villages of the State. The King was a low key functionary in the Committee managing the Temple and he had only a very limited authority with half a vote. In fact, the Kings used to be even fined by the Ettarayogam Potties who were in control of the management of the Temple, if they considered the King's interference or involvement in the management of the Temple was excessive or unwanted. However, in the protracted battle between Marthandavarma and his loyalists on the one side and the Ettuveettil Pillamars, the Brahmins and the son of the King on the other hand, Marthandavarma succeeded and he executed all the Ettuveettil Pillamars, razed their houses to the ground and distributed their females to the fishermen. The Potties who were in charge of the Temple were also ousted from the management of the Temple, and most of them were banished and sent out of the State. Thus, it was in the climax of such a bloody political thriller, Marthandavarma managed to take over full control of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple.

It is pertinent to note that vide Proclamation on 17.9.1811, issued by then Rani of Travancore, Gouri Lakshmi Bhai, all the major Hindu temples in Travancore were brought under the King. Thereafter the temple properties were also restored to the State and the temples and the lands were brought under the Land Revenue Department. In fact, vast extent of properties of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple was also restored to it. This arrangement continued until the taking over of the Government temples by the Travancore Devaswom Board under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The only change that happened in between was during the rule of Sree Moolam Thirunal Ramavarma who handed over the temples and the properties from Revenue Department of the State to the Devaswom Department of the Government, from which it was taken over by the Travancore Devaswom Board on it's constitution. So far as the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple is concerned, the only difference is that the temple was under the direct control of the Travancore King. However, this temple was also treated as a State/public temple and was never regarded as private property of the Travancore King or as his family property.

The system of the Travancore King running the Temple continued during the period of Chithira Thirunal Balaramavarma, who was the King from 1931 to 1949 when the Agreement of Accession was, signed integrating the Princely States of Travancore and Cochin as one and bringing the Travancore-Cochin as Part B State under the Constitution. By virtue of the Article VIII(b) of the Covenant, the administration of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, the Sree Pandaravaga properties and all other properties and funds of the Temple got vested in trust in the Ruler of the covenanting State of Travancore. In fact, after the commencement of the Constitution, the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 was enacted, Section 18(2) of which specifically incorporates the above provision in the Covenant vesting the management of the Temple in trust in the Ruler of Travancore.

Section 18 of the TC Act vesting in Trust the management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple with the Ruler of Travancore is as under:

            "18. Administration by Executive Officer:- (1) Out of the amount of forty-six lakhs and fifty thousand rupees provided for payment of the Devaswom Fund in Article 290-Aof the Constitution of India, a contribution of six lakhs of rupees shall be made annually towards the expenditure in the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple.

         (2) The administration of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, the Sree Pandaravaga properties and all other properties and funds of the said temple vested in trust in the Ruler of Travancore and the sum of six lakhs of rupees mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be conducted, subject to the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore, by an Executive Officer appointed by him." (emphasis supplied)

This makes it abundantly clear that the Temple is not at all the family Temple of the Royal Family or a private property of the King. Rather, the Temple was vested in trust in the hands of the last Ruler of Travancore. Further, Section 18(1) of the TC Act which provides for continuous funding of the temple by the State Government at the rate of Rs.6 lakhs annually clearly establish that this is a public temple, though during the life of the last Ruler, he was allowed to manage the same.

Now arises the question that whether Uthradam Thirunal Marthandavarma, is “Ruler” as envisaged in Section 18(2), so as to enable himself to manage the affairs of the Temple. Since "Ruler" is not defined in the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, we have to necessarily adopt the definition of Ruler as substituted in Article 366(22) of the Constitution with effect from 28.12.1971 which is as follows:

            "Ruler" means the Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler."

Obviously, Uthradam Thirunal Marthandavarma or his successors of the Royal Family will not come within the description of "Ruler" as defined under Article 366(22) of the Constitution and the only person who answers the definition is the last Ruler, Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma and after him no one can acquire that status which is not heritable. In this context the term "Ruler" used in the Covenant of Accession Agreement and in Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 probably has only a literal meaning to describe Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, who was the last Ruler of Travancore and the signatory to the Accession Agreement. Therefore, after death of Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma on 20.7.1991, there is no Ruler in the erstwhile State of Travancore. So much so, the contentions that Uthradam Thirunal Marthandavarma, being brother of the last Ruler becomes the Ruler of Travancore after the death of the last Ruler, is only absurd, and he has no authority to manage the Temple. In other words, since 20.7.1991, the ‘royal’ family is illegally dealing with the affairs of the Temple. After the death of the last Ruler of Travancore, the present Ruler happens to be the State Government and so much so, by operation of Section 18(2) of the Act, the Temple on death of the last Ruler reverts back to the State for administration by it.

It is most humbly prayed that the persons rolling the sea-shells upside down and counting them either in odds or even numbers and declaring the loyalty towards ‘royals’, may kindly have a belief in the glory of the blood of martyrs, who fought for freedom of our land and in the sanctity of our Constitution, which we adopt for ourselves. It is perplexing to see, even the most educated and enlightened persons are so fond of the muscle power of Marthandavarma, which should have “incurred the displeasure of ‘devan’ and also bode ill for the people and for the land”. Education is for liberation; the liberation from the darkness of the superstitions and congested communal sentiments.

“Thamasoma Jyothirgamaya”