Ours A Politically Sensitive State, Hardly Anyone Completely Apolitical, Political Leaning No Bar To Post Of Non-Hereditary Temple Trustee: Kerala HC

A Division Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and K Haripal made certain pertinent observations in this respect, while also touching upon the nature of political life in the state of Kerala.

While emphasizing that a temple or its precincts could not be made a place for political parties to give asylum to its workers, the Court remarked,

"…ours being a highly politically sensitive State, hardly any person can be traced, who is completely apolitical or who may not have his own independent political views."

Continuing on this theme, the Court explained that shifting political leanings among people in the State was perhaps a reason that Kerala was a state of political swinging.

"There may be persons having permanent political ideologies or views whereas there may be equal number of persons who hold views according to the issues involved. Perhaps that may be the reason why Kerala has become a State of political swinging."

The Division Bench underscored, however, that its observations were made in the context of the central question in the proceedings.

In light of the observations, the Court summarised that holding political views or sympathizing with a political denomination cannot be held a disqualification for nominating anyone to such a post.

The Court was hearing a plea moved by a Suresh K, who approached the High Court asserting he was a devotee of the Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathi devaswom, supervised by the Malabar Devaswom.

He claimed that certain non-heriditary trustees appointed by the Commissioner of the Malabar devaswom to the Temple Trust Board were active politicans. Active politicians were ineligible for appointment as per the Commissioner's notification inviting applications, it was submitted.

After the petitioner's initial challenge to the appointments that was submitted to the State Government failed, he filed a petition before he High Court.

To buttress his contention that the persons in question for active politicians, the petitioner placed on record certain photographs.

Holding that the evidence presented was vague the Court stressed the need for foolproof evidence when such an allegation was made.

The Court highlighted that no evidence of the persons in question being office bearers of a political party were brought on record.

In this light, the Court declared,

"..even assuming that respondents 7 to 9 have some political leaning or rather they are sympathizers of a political party, that fact will not disentitle them to be considered for appointment as non-hereditary trustees. There is clear distinction between sympathizing with a political party and indulging in active participation in the activities of the party. The taboo under subclause (g) of clause 3 of Ext.P2 will be attracted only if they are active politicians or are office bearers of a political party, for which absolutely no evidence is forthcoming…"

Highlighting that the Malabar Devaswom's Inspector had duly interviewed and examined the affidavits submitted by the applicants, the Court opined that the petition was without merit.

On this, among other grounds, the Court dismissed the petition.

CASE NAME: Suresh K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Advocates J.Julian Xavier, Firoz K.Robin, Pious Mathew, Roy Joseph, Aannies Mathew, Advocate E.Haridas

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Sr GP Renil Anto Kandamkulathy for the State, Advocate R.Lakshmi Narayan for the Malabar Devaswom and its Office Bearers, Advocate M.P.Prabhakaran (Palakkad) for the persons whose appointement was challenged.

Clickhere to download the judgment