Apex Court calls for special audit of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust

feature-top

Read Judgment: Sri Marthanda Varma (d) Th. Lrs. &Ors vs. State of Kerala & Ors

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, September  23, 2021 :The Supreme Court has directed that the special audit with respect to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust (SPSTT) be completed as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of this order.

While rejecting the prayer for exclusion from special audit, a Three Judge Bench of Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice S.Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed that the audit contemplated by the direction under the judgment of this Court dated July 13, 2020, was not intended to be confined to the Temple but was also with respect to SPSTT.

The observation came pursuant to applications filed seeking appropriate directions to exclude Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust from the audit of its accounts, as the said Trust remains separate and distinct from Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple.

The application was also sought for an appropriate order holding that the Applicant Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Trust is an independent entity distinct form Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple and does not come under the administrative control of the Administrative Committee and/ or Advisory Committee under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1950.

The background of the case was that the Supreme Court last year had handed over the administration of the Padmanabh Swamy Temple from the erstwhile Travancore Royal Family to an Administrative Committee headed by the District Judge of Thiruvananthapuram.

The Court also directed the Administrative Committee to order an audit of the temple’s income and expenses for the past 25 years, as suggested by amicus curiae Gopal Subramanium.

However, when the CA firm assigned for the audit asked the Trust to submit the income and expenditure records, the Trust again approached the Supreme Court, arguing that they were an independent institution formed in 1965 to conduct the religious rituals of the temple and that they had no role in the day-to-day administration of the temple.

The Supreme Court though recognized the rights of the ex-royal family but then handed over the administration to the Administrative Committee,which was to be headed by the District Judge of Thiruvananthapuram. The Court also directed the temple to repay to the State Government amounts spent by the State for the security and maintenance of the Temple.

Arvind P. Datar, the counsel appearing for the Trust submitted that although the special audit for the concerned period had already been conducted and a report submitted to this Court, the trust would have no difficulty in co-operating with Mr. ArvindRai (CA) in undertaking scrutiny of the said audit report and in conducting a fresh audit, if in his opinion doing so is necessary.

When the audit report was submitted, it does not record any finding that:(a) the properties of SPSTT are part of the properties of the Temple;(b) funds have been transferred from the Temple to SPSTT; (c) the Trust is entrusted with the administration of the Temple; (d) there exists any agreement between the Trust and the Temple on any matters relating to the rituals and rites or any other functions in the Temple;(e) the working of SPSTT is accountable to the Temple administration; or that (f) there exists a legally auditable relationship between SPSTT and the Temple, noted the Supreme Court.

The Trust was created only for the benefit of the Temple and the Temple is its sole beneficiary. The founder of the Trust Sri.Rama Varma Maharaja of Travancore had transferred to this Trust various items of landed properties which are surrounding the Temple, and the transfer was made solely for the benefit of the Temple. As per the Trust deed, the income from the Trust has to be used only for the said objects viz., the benefit of the Temple. The present trustees of the said Trust are members of the erstwhile Travancore royal family and persons connected to them”, noted the Apex Court.

Add a Comment