Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, on 25 August 2025, directed the Administrative Committee of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple to submit the Expert Committee Report, a note from the Thantri, and an Action Taken Report regarding the condition of the temple’s Moolavigraha. The Bench made it clear that the matter is not adversarial and stressed the need for alignment with the beliefs of millions of devotees. The Court adjourned the matter to 11 September 2025 to enable the respondents to place the required materials on record.

The writ petition was filed by an advocate aged 72 years, seeking judicial directions concerning the reported defects in the Moolavigraha of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple. The petitioner submitted that following Exhibit P3, a report dated 05 November 2017 prepared by a committee after inspecting the Moolavigraha, necessary steps were required to rectify defects in the idol. He requested that respondents 2 and 3, namely the Chairman of the Administrative Committee and the Temple represented by its Executive Officer, be directed to submit a report on the steps taken. The petitioner’s prayers sought accountability regarding rectification and the current condition of the Moolavigraha.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Delay in Compliance of Order Does Not Constitute Wilful Contempt | Pension Claim Rejected as Beyond Scope of Original Relief | Compensation Directed to Legal Heirs

Arguments were advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as the standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner’s side relied on Exhibit P3 as evidence of defects identified in 2017, contending that there had not been sufficient disclosure of the remedial measures adopted. The State was represented by the Senior Government Pleader, while counsel appeared for the Administrative Committee and the Temple authorities. A communication from the Chief Thantri dated 06 February 2025, marked as Exhibit R3(3), was also placed before the Court, along with minutes of the Committee of Experts’ meeting held on 18 January 2025.

The Bench noted that the matter had earlier come up on 30 June 2025 and was now listed for further orders. The Court recorded the need for clarity on whether the defects reported in Exhibit P3 were rectified and, if so, whether such rectifications had received the sanction and approval of the Thantri, who holds spiritual authority over matters concerning the idol.

It was submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Administrative Committee that an Expert Committee had been constituted after Exhibit P3 report was considered, and further, that the directions of the Supreme Court were being implemented in letter and spirit. However, the Bench observed that the Expert Committee’s report itself was not placed before it. While acknowledging the existence of Exhibit R3(3), the note from the Thantri, the Court expressed the view that such a note alone would not suffice without an accompanying action taken report and the Expert Committee’s findings.

The Court recorded that while the Administrative Committee and Executive Committee may oversee temporal matters of temple administration, spiritual matters must defer to the authority of the Thantri, described as “the father of the deity.” The Judges made it clear that in issues relating to the Moolavigraha, the Court’s engagement would be direct with the Thantri.

The Bench stated at the outset: “We begin recording upfront that we will not, and cannot, take these matters as being adversarial.” The Court further recorded: “The assertion on one side is that there are defects to the ‘Moolavigraha’ of the Temple; while on the other, it is stated that they have been rectified, or are in the process of being rectified.”

Addressing the scope of judicial oversight, the Court observed: “We have no doubt that in spiritual matters of the Temple – in contradistinction to the temporal matters – it is the opinion of the Thantri which is acme because he enjoys the status of father of the deity.”

The Bench noted the submissions of the standing counsel for the Administrative Committee: “Sri. R. Suraj Kumar – learned standing counsel for the Administrative Committee, affirmed the above; adding that an Expert Committee was constituted, after Ext.P3 report (in WP(C) No.7039/2025) had been adverted to. He also conceded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had issued certain directions, which are being implemented in its letter and spirit.”

On the absence of materials before it, the Court stated: “However, we notice that the Expert Committee Report is not before us.” The Judges also recorded: “Though a Note by the Thantri, marked as Ext.R3(3) is available, we are of the firm view that it may not be sufficient because, as we have said above, this case would revolve around the opinion and the impressions of the Thantri, more than anybody else.”

Further stating the primacy of spiritual authority, the Bench stated: “Though the Executive Committee or the Administrative Committee, as the case may be, may have a say in temporal matters of the Temple, when it comes to the spiritual matters, we may have to give precedence to the opinion of the Thantri. We have no doubt, therefore, that our interaction in this case will have to be direct with him, which we will do in due course.”

On the lack of adequate inputs, the Court observed: “As matters now stand, this Court has not been favoured with a copy of the Expert Committee Report, nor do we have any further input on Ext.R3(3), in the form of an Action Taken Report.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Imposes ₹25,000 Cost On PIL Petitioner For Suppressing Personal Interest | Stresses Disclosure of Credentials At Threshold

The Bench concluded its observations with a note of principle, recording: “We close this order under the hortative hope that all the stakeholders understand that while dealing with such matters, what is relevant is not controversy, but the concerted belief and wishes of the millions of people who have their conscience focused on the idol. The cosmic power generated is beyond description, and it is the responsibility of every generation to ensure that the same is maintained, to be handed over to the next. This is what we want the Committees to ensure, but without interfering with the spiritual activities, which shall be controlled, in the normal course, by the Thantri and other spiritual experts.”

The Court adjourned the matter to 11 September 2025 with specific directions. The Bench ordered the Administrative Committee to place on record three specific documents. First, the Court directed submission of the Expert Committee Report. Second, the Court directed submission of a note from the Thantri regarding the action to be taken or already taken. Third, the Court required an Action Taken Report by the Committee consistent with the opinion and directions of the Thantri.

The Bench made it clear that while temporal matters may fall within the Committee’s scope, spiritual concerns must defer to the Thantri’s authority. The Judges held that the Court’s interaction would eventually be direct with the Thantri in respect of spiritual issues.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: M/s. M. Balagovindan, Mini Gangadharan & T.K. Ananda Padmanabhan, Advocates.

Case Title: R. Rajasekharan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others

Case Number: WP(C) No.7039 of 2025(D)

Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha