New Delhi:
The Supreme Court Monday said that having tested on various parameter, such as historical accounts, customary beliefs, deep involvement of ruling family and their connection with the Temple and Sri Padmanabhaswamy made it believe that Rulers of Travancore, till the signing of the Covenant, were in the capacity as Managers or Shebaits of the Temple. The top court said that the practices show that right from the conception of a child upto the death of any member of the erstwhile royal family, special prayers are offered and certain rituals were followed at the temple.
A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indu Malhotra in its verdict said despite royal family not claiming the ownership status, the fact remains that it is well accepted that the management of the Temple had all along been in the hands of the ruling family or the Travancore Palace. “Tested on any parameter, such as historical accounts, popular and customary beliefs, certain practices connected with the rituals and affairs of the Temple that mandatorily require the presence and participation of the Ruler, deep involvement of the members of ruling family and their connection with the Temple and Sri Padmanabhaswamy at various stages of their lives, ‘The Thrippati Danam’ and its significance, and long recognised and accepted fact that the management of the Temple had always been with the Ruler….” “…lead us to conclude that for centuries, the Temple had been under the exclusive management of successive Rulers from the ruling family of Travancore and that the Rulers of Travancore, till the signing of the Covenant, were in the capacity as Managers or Shebaits of the Temple” the bench said.
Referring to the practices, the bench said, “Every male child born in the erstwhile royal family, is made “Dasa” of Sri Padmanabhaswamy while every female child is made “Sevini” through prescribed rituals. Special ceremonies are conducted at the time of ‘Upanayanam’ of a male member and marriage of a female member of the erstwhile royal family”. The bench said that the facts that the Ruler is an obligatory participant in various temple rituals like he has an ‘Ekantha Darshan’ with Sri Padmanabhaswamy on all days in the morning hours where, except the Nambi, nobody else can remain present; that the Ruler has to take special permission whenever he leaves the town; and that whenever the deity is taken out in procession, the Ruler leads the procession with the sword drawn out, along with the heir apparent, establish the special relationship that the erstwhile royal family in general and the Ruler in particular, have always had with Sri Padmanabhaswamy.
“The ceremony of dedication undertaken by the then ruler in 1750 A.D. bears testimony to such relationship as well as the deep devotion and sense of complete surrender before Sri Padmanabhaswamy,” the bench noted in its 218-page verdict. Dealing with Shebaitship, the bench said that it is clear that after the major fire that occurred in the year 1686, the temple was reconstructed and a new idol was installed by the King of Travancore Shri Marthand Varma and since then right upto the day the Covenant was signed, the management of the Temple had always been with the Kings of Travancore.
“The shebaitship or the managership of the Temple passed on to the succeeding Kings, coming from the royal family of Travancore. This chain was unbroken till the then Ruler of Travancore signed the Covenant in May 1949,” the bench added. It said, even the royal sword was placed with utmost reverence on the ‘Ottakkal Mandapam’ leading to the Sanctum, which the King got back from the high priest.
“Every further acquisition by the King was always surrendered to Sri Padmanabhaswamy. The King and his successors thus ruled and conducted themselves as “Padmanabhadasas” and agents of Sri Padmanabhaswamy,” it said. The bench said that the expression Shebait is derived from “sewa” which means service and Shebait, in literal sense, means one who renders “sewa” to the idol or a deity. “Every Ruler of Travancore would call himself “Padmanabhadasa” i.e. one who is engaged in the service of Sri Padmanabhaswamy,” the bench added.
The top court after dealing with the factual scenario, also considered the legal character and incidents of Shebaitship and said, according to Hindu law, “when the worship of a ‘thakoor’ has been founded, the Shebaitship is held to be vested in the heirs of the founder, in default of evidence that he has disposed of it otherwise, or there has been some usage, course of dealing, or some circumstances to show a different mode of devolution”. The top court allowed the appeal of the legal heirs of Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma, the younger brother of the last ruler, Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, setting side the Kerala High Court’s 2011 verdict which had directed the state government to set up a trust to take control of management and assets of the temple.
The death of earlier ruler of the Travancore family does not affect the right of ”Shebaitship” (managing devotee) of Marthanda Varma and his legal heirs, the court said. “It must, therefore, be concluded that the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India as well as that of the the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (TC Act) did not, in any way, upset or abridge the status enjoyed by the Ruler of Travancore as Shebait of the Temple and also did not, in any manner, adversely impact the right of administration vested in the Ruler of Travancore,” the bench concluded.
