Supreme Court Exonerates Travancore Devaswom Board On Sourcing Cardamom For Sabarimala Aravana Prasadam

The Supreme Court held that there was no fault on the part of the Travancore Devaswom Board in sourcing 7000 kilograms of cardamom in 2022 for the preparation of Aravana Prasadam which is offered in the Sabarimala Temple.

The Kerala High Court, in April 2023, had ordered the prosecution of the Travancore Devaswom Board under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 on the ground that the cardamom had more than the permissible limits of pesticides. Earlier, the High Court had restrained the supply of the Prasadam 

Setting aside the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court exonerated the Board, based on a report submitted by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in June 2023 stating that the cardamom was fit for consumption as the pesticide presence was below the permissible limits.

The Court noted that the Board had to cancel the two earlier tenders as the cardamom supplied by the bidders was of low quality.

"It is in these compelling circumstances, considering the impending festive season and the imminent need to prepare a humungous quantity of Aravana Prasadam, that the appellant-Board invoked the urgency clause in its regulations and authorised the Chief Executive Officer of the Sabarimala Temple to procure cardamom from local sources. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision is arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. There is neither arbitrariness nor malice in the decision of the appellant-Board as all the prospective bidders were given a fair chance as the notice to purchase cardamom was published on the notice board. The cardamom samples submitted by the bidders were then tested in a nearby lab, which was also established by the Commissioner of Food Safety as per an order of the High Court. Thereafter, price negotiations were conducted, and respondent No. 2 was given supply orders after quoting the lowest rates. We are of the opinion that the decision of the appellant- Board is legal, fair and transparent. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1"

High Court erred in entertaining a PIL filed by the rival bidder.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed error in entertaining the PIL filed by the respondent no.1 who is the interested person in the writ petition because being a primary supplier of cardamom to the Board after his supply orders were rejected he was aggrieved by the decision of the Board to grant supply orders of cardamom to respondent no.2/local traders.

“In the present case, respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner, is an interested party. It had supplied cardamom to the appellant Board for the year 2021-2022. It had also participated in the two tenders released by the appellant-Board, which later came to be cancelled. Although this information has not been concealed, it is quite evident that the writ petitioner was interested in the outcome of the writ petition. The second prayer in the writ petition, which has been extracted before, is for cancellation of the purchase of cardamom from respondent no. 2. This prayer makes it clear that the real grievance is about the grant of contract in favour of respondent no. 2.”, the court stated.

Further, the Supreme Court stated that the constitutional courts should exercise caution while interfering in contractual and tender matters, disguised as public interest litigations, i.e., courts should be slow and cautious in exercising the power of judicial review. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition on behalf of an interested person who sought to convert a judicial review proceeding for enhancing personal gain.

“Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta.”, the Supreme Court said in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, as referred to in the present case.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Board's appeal after finding that no illegality or arbitrariness in committed by the Appellant Board while awarding the contract to respondent no. 2.

In view of the fact that the writ petition was not found to be entertainable, the Court did not deem it necessary to answer the second issue whether the appellant- Board qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined under Section 3(1)(j) of the Act.

During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Board informed that the Board was no longer desirous to distribute the Prasadam in view of the long lapse of time.

Senior Advocate V Giri appeared for the TDB. ASG KM Nataraj appeared for the FSSAI.

Case Title : The Travancore Devaswom Board versus Ayyappa Spices and others

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207

Click here to read the judgment