Kerala High Court | Clarity Sought on TDB’s ‘Global Ayyappa Sangamam’ | Bar on Devotees’ Funds, Pamba Riverbank Requires Highest Sanctity
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. admitted a public interest litigation challenging the conduct of the proposed “Global Ayyappa Sangamam.” The Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to ensure that all actions pertaining to the event strictly comply with obligations prescribed under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. It recorded that the Board carries the entire responsibility for the event and required it to place on record all relevant details, particularly concerning its financing and schedule. The matter has been listed for further consideration.
The writ petition was filed by a petitioner appearing in person, who raised objections to the conduct of the proposed “Global Ayyappa Sangamam” near the Sabarimala Temple and adjoining Pamba River bank. The petitioner contended that the event was political in nature and therefore impermissible under the guise of religious activity associated with Lord Ayyappa. He urged the Court to prevent temporary constructions or arrangements at the temple premises and riverside pending disposal of the case, asserting that the sanctity of the temple and rights of devotees could be irreparably harmed.
The petition sought directions against the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, to remove any temporary structures related to the event. It further requested interim measures to safeguard the sanctity, spiritual purity, and traditional ethos of the Sabarimala Temple, until the petition was finally adjudicated.
During admission, the petitioner maintained that the “Global Ayyappa Sangamam” was essentially political. He argued that religious sentiments of devotees were being misused in the name of the deity and that the event should not be permitted within the temple precincts or its associated locations, including the banks of the Pamba River.
In response, the Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by its standing counsel, submitted that the event was intended to showcase Sabarimala as a global pilgrimage centre. The Board claimed that the programme was aimed at propagating the universal message of “Thathwamasi,” symbolising religious harmony and global unity. It clarified that the event also coincided with the Platinum Jubilee of the Board’s establishment.
The Board informed the Court that no funds from the State exchequer or its own resources would be utilised for the event. Instead, the programme was proposed to be funded entirely through sponsorships. However, the counsel acknowledged that further details regarding the sponsorship, including its nature and manner, were not presently available and would be placed on record later.
The State Government, represented by the Senior Government Pleader, supported the Board’s statement that the event was organised exclusively by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The Government asserted that its role was limited to assisting with crowd management, given the large number of devotees expected to attend. The State indicated that police and other enforcement agencies would ensure proper management of the event to avoid untoward incidents.
The Bench noted that neither the petitioner nor the respondents provided a clear and precise explanation of the exact nature of the proposed event. The submissions made were described as peripheral, leaving the Court without full clarity on the programme. Nonetheless, the Court recorded that the matter involved questions regarding the statutory obligations of the Board under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.
The petitioner’s contention was that the event was a congregation with political undertones, while the Board maintained that it was part of its obligations to promote Sabarimala as a pilgrimage centre under the said Act. The dispute therefore centred on whether the planned event fell within the scope of the Board’s statutory duties or constituted an activity beyond its authority.
The Court acknowledged that at the admission stage it could not conclusively address the petitioner’s allegation regarding the political nature of the event. However, it recognised the importance of ensuring that the Devaswom Board acted strictly within the framework of its statutory responsibilities.
The Division Bench recorded that the Pamba River, identified as “Dakshina Ganga,” held deep reverence for devotees and that any event conducted on its banks must be undertaken with utmost sanctity. The Court stressed that the Board must provide complete transparency about the event’s arrangements, financing, and schedule.
The Court stated: “The petitioner appearing in person asserts that the event in question in this writ petition — called the ‘Global Ayyappa Sangamam’ — is a ‘political one,’ and hence can never be allowed in the name of Lord Ayyappa.”
The Bench recorded the submission of the Board’s counsel: “The proposed event is being conducted by the TDB to ‘showcase Sabarimala as a Global Pilgrimage Centre and to propagate the universal message of Thathwamasi promoting religious harmony and global unity.’”
On funding, the judgment noted: “No amount or money will be used for the event from either the Public Exchequer, or from the resources of the TDB; and that it is proposed to be funded entirely through ‘sponsorships.’”
The Court stated that details of sponsorship were not available at the present stage: “He was unable to inform us the nature and manner of sponsorship, but we do not blame him because, as we have said above, we are considering this matter for the first time today.”
The Government’s role was recorded as limited: “The event is being organised exclusively by the TDB; and that the only role of the Government is to offer support for crowd management.”
The Court highlighted the absence of clarity: “Neither of the sides have been able to tell us with precision what the nature of the proposed event is. What we have been told are peripheral things, which does not really explain the event fully.”
On statutory obligations, the Bench observed: “When the TDB says that they are attempting to showcase ‘Sabarimala’ as a Global Pilgrimage Centre, it can only be construed that they are promoting pilgrimage as a part of their obligations and duties under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.”
The petitioner’s counterargument was noted: “This is not so and that what is being attempted is a congregation, which is ‘political’ in nature.”
The Court emphasised the scope of TDB’s powers: “We are certain that, when this Court exercises jurisdiction under the ‘Act,’ the TDB must be ordered to make sure that all their actions fall within the strict ambit of the same and their obligations, as are statutorily prescribed.”
The judgment recorded: “They must bear it in mind that their duties and responsibilities are only to the Religious Institutions under the ‘Act’; bound in full by the trust, beliefs and conscience of the multitude of devotees on the deity.”
The Court further directed: “Anything that the TDB endeavors, must fall within the conspectus of this and not otherwise or beyond.”
On responsibility, the Court noted: “Since the Government states unequivocally that the event is being organised solely by the TDB, with them only providing security/crowd management services, the entire responsibility for it ineluctably rests on the latter.”
Regarding sanctity of location, the Court stated: “The proposed event — stated by the TDB to be conducted on the bank of River Pamba — can be allowed only with the highest sanctity, since it is held in acme reverence by the devotees. Pamba is often referred to as the ‘Dakshina Ganga,’ exemplifying its piety to the worshipers who throng to the Sabarimala for darsan.”
On disclosure, the Bench recorded: “The TDB must obviously explain and answer all above, placing on record every germane information regarding the event and its schedule.”
The standing counsel affirmed to provide further details: “He will be able to get better instructions and file necessary pleadings on how the event is planned, and scheduled to be taken forward, particularly its financing, on the next posting date.”
The Court stressed financial scrutiny: “This issue is crucially important because ‘sponsorships,’ as the TDB now says, ought to be from verifiable and credible sources alone.”
The Court directed that the Travancore Devaswom Board must ensure that all its actions related to the “Global Ayyappa Sangamam” event fall strictly within its statutory obligations under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. It stated that the duties and responsibilities of the Board are confined to religious institutions under the Act, in accordance with the trust, beliefs, and conscience of devotees.
The Court placed the entire responsibility for the event on the Travancore Devaswom Board, recording that the State Government’s role was limited to providing security and crowd management. It directed that the Board should maintain the highest sanctity in conducting the programme, especially since it was proposed to be held on the banks of the Pamba River, a site of great reverence for devotees.
The judgment required the Board to disclose and place on record all relevant details regarding the event, including its schedule and financing. The Court held that sponsorships must be drawn only from verifiable and credible sources.
The Division Bench admitted the writ petition, recorded the appearances of counsel for the parties, and listed the matter for further consideration on 9 September 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi, Party-in-Person
For the Respondents: Sri. S. Kannan; Sri. G. Biju
Case Title: Re State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP (PIL) No. 109 of 2025 (S)
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
