Supreme Court of India
OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE & ANR.versusG. VIJAYANATHAKURUP AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 922
- Decided
- 3 December 2024
- Bench
- SANJIV KHANNA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that, to ensure proper administration of the temple, a retired judge should be appointed as Administrative Head to conduct elections under the temple's bye‑laws, and the earlier High Court orders were modified accordingly.
Summary
The appellants, elected Secretary and President of the Executive Committee of Oachira Parabrahma Temple, challenged two High Court orders that removed the elected committee and appointed an unelected committee under an Administrative Head. They argued that the High Court, having disposed of the regular first appeal, lacked jurisdiction to entertain a later interlocutory application and that the removal of the elected bodies violated the temple's bye‑laws. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was functus officio and whether its intervention was justified. Observing the temple's unique historical status and its operation of a hospital and nursing institutions, the Court held that a fresh election under a newly appointed Administrative Head was necessary for proper governance. Accordingly, it appointed a retired High Court judge as Administrative Head to conduct elections within four months and directed the cessation of the earlier Administrative Head and Advocate Commissioner. The Court also ordered the trial court to expedite the final decree on the scheme and closed the contempt petitions.
Issues considered
- When the High Court had concluded the regular first appeal, did it retain jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory application filed in 2022?
- Was the High Court justified in removing the elected Executive Committee and appointing an unelected committee contrary to the temple's bye‑laws?
Subjects
Oachira Parabrahma TempleAdministration and management of templeAdministrative HeadAdministratorExecutive CommitteeElectionBye-laws of the templeAdvocate CommissionerRetired Judge of High Court
Judgment
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 358 : 2024 INSC 922
Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr.
v.
G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 13708-13709 of 2024)
With
(Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 987-988 of 2023)
03 December 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, Sanjay Kumar and
R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the dispute as regards administration and
management of Oachira Parabrahma temple and its institutions
by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and the
alleged Executive Committee.
Headnotes†
Trust and charities – Oachira Parabrahma Temple –
Administration and management of temple – Serious disputes
in administering and managing the temple and its institutions
by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and
the alleged Executive Committee:
Held: The subject temple is a unique, ancient and historical one –
It administers/runs a hospital, a Nursing College and a Nursing
School, to cater to the needs of the general public – It is imperative
to restore, protect and preserve temples and their properties with
utmost care – Thus, it is just and necessary to conduct election
under the aegis of a new Administrative Head/Administrator, for
the smooth and effective administration of the subject temple
and the institutions – Retired Judge of High Court appointed
as Administrative Head/Administrator to conduct election –
Administrative Head/Administrator to commence the election
process strictly in accordance with the Bye-laws of the temple,
within the stipulated period – Administrative Head/Administrator/
Advocate Commissioner appointed by the High Court, ceases to
exist and thus, directed to hand over the charge/accounts to the
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 359
Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors.
newly appointed Administrative Head/Administrator with immediate
effect – Newly Appointed Administrator/Administrative Head to
manage the affairs of the Temple/Samithis until the elections
are held and to handover the charge to the elected body –
Existing arrangements relating to the functions/duties/affairs of
the subject temple and its institutions to continue, until further
orders from the trial court – Trial court to complete the final decree
proceedings in the suit filed for framing of Scheme, as expeditiously
as possible. [Paras 15, 16]
List of Keywords
Oachira Parabrahma Temple; Administration and management of
temple; Administrative Head; Administrator; Executive Committee;
Election; Bye-laws of the temple; Advocate Commissioner; Retired
Judge of High Court.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION/INHERENT JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal Nos. 13708-13709 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2020 and 07.02.2023
of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No. 562 of 2010
and IA No. 5 of 2022 respectively
With
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 987-988 of 2023 In Civil Appeal Nos.
13708-13709 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mugdha, Deepak Kumar Singh,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellants.
V. Chitambaresh, Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Advs., Koshy John, M.S.
Vishnu Sankar, Sriram Parakkat, Ms. Athira G Nair, Ms. Viddusshi,
Aditya Santhosh, Ms. Anjali Singh, Anandhu S. Nair, M/s. Lawfic,
Anshuman Siddharth Nayak, Rahul Kulhare, Gagan Singh Parmar,
Ms. Ekta Choudhary, Ms. Jeba Khan, Anand Krishna, Bijo Mathew
Joy, Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Atul Shankar Vinod, R. Krishnaraj, Tom
Joseph, Dr. Linto KB, Satyajeet Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
360 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants, claiming themselves as elected Secretary and
President of a temple viz., Oachira Parabrahma Temple situated
at Kerala (hereinafter shortly referred to as “the subject temple”),
have preferred these Civil Appeals against two orders passed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam viz.
one is a final Judgment and order dated 02.03.2020 passed in RFA
No. 562/2010 and another is an order dated 07.02.2023 passed in
I.A No. 5/2022.
Brief background
3. According to the averments made in the Civil Appeals, the subject
temple is a unique, ancient and historical one as there is no building,
consecrated idol or deity and sanctum sanctorum. The management
of the temple and the institutions being run under it, such as,
super speciality hospital, nursing college, etc., are governed by the
bye-laws of the temple. As per the Bye-laws, the administration is
vested in a system of three-tier elected Committees, viz., Pothubharana
Samithi (General Board), Pravarthaka Samithi (Working Committee)
and Karya Nirvahana Samithi (Executive Committee). The Appellant
Nos.1 and 2 were elected as Secretary and President respectively
of the Executive Committee in the election held during May 2017
and thereafter, no election has been conducted so far. However, on
07.04.2022, the Executive Committee, which existed till then, was
voted out in a no-confidence motion, and a new committee consisting
of 11 members, including the appellants, assumed office.
4. In the year 2006, some devotees filed a suit in OS.No.1/2006 before
the 1st Additional District Court, Kollam, seeking to frame a Scheme
for administration of the subject temple and the institutions thereunder.
By judgment and decree dated 09.04.2010, the trial Court passed a
preliminary decree directing framing a Scheme; and further, directed
the parties to file a draft Scheme. It was also observed by the trial
Court that till the Scheme is framed, the administration of the subject
temple would continue as per the Bye-laws of the temple.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 361
Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid preliminary decree of the trial Court, the
defendant Nos.12 and 13 who are Sthanis (Hereditary Trustees) of
the temple, preferred a Regular First Appeal bearing No.562/2010
before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, seeking a direction to
the trial Court to make adequate safeguards for them, with respect
to their share of amounts and their roles to play, in the proposed
Scheme. During the pendency of the said RFA, an interim order dated
05.10.2010 came to be passed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court, appointing an Advocate Commissioner viz., Mr.B.Premnath,
for the purpose of counting the offerings in the temple. According to
the appellants, the Advocate Commissioner so appointed was only
to the limited purpose of counting the offerings in the temple and
he had not been given any power to administer the subject temple
over and above the Committees or to supervise the Committees at
any point of time.
6. By the 1st impugned order, the High Court disposed of the aforesaid
Regular First Appeal, inter alia, directing the trial Court to frame a
Scheme for the management of the temple and its institutions and
to formulate Rules with respect to their functioning, after giving
opportunity to all the parties to produce draft Scheme as expeditiously
as possible, but not later than one year from the date of production of
copy of the Judgment. Further, the High Court appointed Hon’ble Mr.
Justice A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, a retired Judge of the High Court of
Kerala, as the Administrative Head of the subject temple and the Trust/
Managing Committee. It was further observed in the 1st impugned
order that the Administrative Committee (the bodies elected as per
the bye-laws of the temple) shall be under the supervision and full
control of the said Administrative Head; until such time the scheme
is framed by the Trial Court; all decisions of the elected bodies shall
require to be ratified by the Administrative Head before the decisions
are put to implementation; the parties concerned would be at liberty
to place within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment,
their suggestions before the Administrative Head regarding the
draft Scheme, so as to enable the Administrative Head to settle the
Scheme through consensus, if it is possible.
7. Seeking a direction to the Administrator to conduct election to elect
a Pothu Bharana Samithi of the subject temple, the Respondent
Nos.5 and 31 in the aforesaid RFA filed an Interlocutory Application
viz., I.A.No.5 of 2022 in RFA No.562 of 2010. By the 2nd impugned
order, the High Court disposed of the said application by removing
362 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the elected Executive Committee of the temple and appointing an
unelected Committee comprising persons of its choice contrary to the
Bye-laws of the temple and the prevailing customs. Being aggrieved,
the appellants who were the elected Secretary and President of
the Executive Committee, are before this Court with these appeals.
Along with these appeals, the appellants have also taken out various
Interlocutory Applications.
8. The issues that arise for consideration in these Civil Appeals are:
(i) When the entire proceedings in RFA was concluded by the 1st
impugned order, whether the High Court, which had become
functus officio and coram non judice losing its jurisdiction upon
disposal of the RFA, was correct in entertaining the interlocutory
application No.5 of 2022 and passing the 2nd impugned order; and
(ii) Contrary to the convention and practice being followed in
the administration of the subject temple and its institutions
thereunder that the elected bodies in vogue would continue
till the next election, whether the High Court was justified in
passing the 2nd impugned order, removing the elected Executive
Committee and appointing an unelected 5 member Committee
of its choice, under the supervision of an Administrative Head
and an Advocate Commissioner, on the application filed to
allow the elected Committees in vogue to function until the
next elections.
9. On 04.05.2023, this Court granted an order of interim stay. Pursuant
to the same, the Appellant No.1 being Secretary of the elected
Committee, sent letters dated 05.05.2023 to the Manager, Kerala
Gramin Bank, Oachira, and the Manager, Punjab National Bank,
Oachira, stating that the elected Committee has resumed the
office and therefore, the accounts of the subject temple should not
be allowed to be operated by anybody except the Secretary and
Treasurer of the elected Committee as contemplated in the bye-laws.
However, the Bank replied that there being no specific direction in
the interim order, they cannot accede to the said request of the office
bearers. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellants preferred
Contempt Petition (Civil) bearing No(s).987-988/2023 in SLP (C)
No(s).10598-10599/2023.
10. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties
and perused the materials placed before us.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 363
Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors.
11. It is evident from the records that the administration of the subject
temple and the institutions thereunder is governed by the Bye-laws
of the temple. Clause 9 of the Bye-laws makes it clear that the term
of office of the elected General Body is five years from the date of
the election. As per Clause 11, the term of the other elected bodies
is co-terminus with that of the General Body. Concededly, after the
election in May 2017, no election has been conducted so far.
12. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
expressed serious grievances about the functioning of the Administrative
Head appointed by the High Court. According to the learned senior
counsel, the Administrative Head has not understood the ground
realities and the emergent situation prevailing over the subject temple
and its institutions; that he refused to meet the elected representatives
and accede to the decisions taken by them; and that he has not even
visited the subject temple, which is essentially required to resolve
the problems and streamline the development. It is further alleged
that the Administrative Head has been issuing orders without proper
consultation with the elected bodies and he has gone to the extent of
appointing a Monitoring Committee with the assistance of Advocate
Commissioner for maintenance and general issues relating to the
administration of the hospital, nursing college and school.
13. The learned senior counsel appearing on the other side has stoutly
refuted the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellants
and submitted that steps are only taken for administration of the
temple until scheme is framed and elections are held for the
Samithis.
14. However, we are not inclined to go into the contentions/issues raised
by the appellants at this stage as the High Court has granted liberty
to the parties to raise all the contentions before the Trial Court. At
the same time, the fact remains that there are serious disputes in
administering and managing the subject temple and its institutions
by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and the
alleged Executive Committee. The appellants have taken out various
Interlocutory Applications before the trial Court and the same are
pending without there being any orders.
15. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the subject temple is a unique,
ancient and historical one and its area comprises a sprawling
of 21.25 acres of land. That apart, it administers/runs a hospital,
viz., Parabrahma Super Speciality Hospital & Research Centre, a
364 [2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Nursing College and a Nursing School, to cater to the needs of the
general public. In the given facts, it is imperative to restore, protect
and preserve temples and their properties with utmost care. It is
also an admitted fact that the suit for framing of Scheme for the
subject temple is pending before the District Court and stands at the
final decree stage. In such circumstances, we feel that it is just and
necessary to conduct election under the aegis of a new Administrative
Head/Administrator, for the smooth and effective administration of
the subject temple and the institutions thereunder, which proposition
has been agreed upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of all the parties.
16. In that view of the matter, we pass the following orders:
(i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ramakrishnan, a retired Judge of
High Court of Kerala is appointed as Administrative Head/
Administrator to conduct election for the administration and
management of the subject temple and its allied institutions,
in a free and fair manner.
(ii) The Administrative Head/Administrator so appointed shall
commence the election process by finalising the voters’ list and
publishing the same, etc., and complete the same strictly in
accordance with the Bye-laws of the temple, within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
and thereafter, file his report to this Court.
(iii) The Administrative Head/Administrator can appoint two officers
i.e., one in the cadre of District Judge (Retd.) and another in
the legal profession, to assist him for speedy completion of the
assignment entrusted to him.
(iv) The Administrative Head/Administrator shall be paid
an honorarium of Rs.2,00,000/= per month, apart from
reimbursement of all the expenses incurred by him, including
travelling expenses, and those incurred towards the discharge
of his duties, from the funds maintained by the subject temple.
In case, he appoints a retired District Judge and an Advocate
for his assistance, the Retired District Judge shall be paid an
honorarium of Rs.75,000/= per month and the Advocate shall
be paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/= per month.
(v) The Administrative Head/Administrator shall incur all the
expenses for smooth conduct of election and administration of
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 365
Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup and Ors.
temple and its institutions from and out of the funds maintained
by the subject temple.
(vi) It is open to the newly appointed Administrative Head to
approach the trial Court for any clarification/directions relating
to conduct of election, administration and management of the
subject temple and its institutions.
(vii) All the parties shall render their assistance/co-operation to the
Administrative Head to complete the election within the time
frame as stipulated in clause (ii) supra of this paragraph.
(viii) In view of the order thus being passed by us, the Administrative
Head/Administrator/Advocate Commissioner appointed by the
High Court, ceases to exist and hence, they are directed to hand
over the charge/accounts to the newly appointed Administrative
Head/Administrator with immediate effect. The newly Appointed
Administrator/Administrative Head shall manage the affairs of
the Temple/Samithis until the election(s) is/are held and shall
handover the charge to the elected body.
(ix) The existing arrangements relating to the functions/duties/affairs
of the subject temple and its institutions shall stand continued,
until further orders from the trial Court.
(x) The trial Court shall complete the final decree proceedings in the
suit filed for framing of Scheme, as expeditiously as possible.
The parties shall participate and raise all the issues touching
upon their rights, Scheme, etc., before the trial Court in the
final decree proceedings.
(xi) The orders impugned herein are modified accordingly.
17. The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Contempt
Petitions shall stand closed. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
Post after four months for reporting compliance.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
Contempt petition closed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Oachira Parabrahma Temple"Sign in to search