GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR. versus C.K. RAJAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 619 · Decided: 14-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
-
GURUVA YUR DEV ASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR. A 
v. 
C.K. RAJAN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 14, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Guruvayoor Devasom Act, 1978, Sections 6, 17, 18, 23 to 26, 36, 38: 
Sree Krishna Temple-Management of-Letter received by High Court 
Judge containing complaint of serious irregularities in a temple-High Court C 
treating the said letter as Public interest litigation petition-Correctness of-
Held: Not correct-When statute governs the field and State takes over the 
management ordinarily court would not step in-Court to step in only when 
State fails to perform its duty-High Court erred in appointing Commissioner 
and taking recourse to the remedies provided for in other statutes-Recourse D 
to the other statute may be resorted to when the State finds that its powers 
under the Act governing the field are inadequate-However suggestions of 
High Court which are already acted upon would not be reopened-Commission 
of Enquiry Act-Kerela Public Men's Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) 
Act, 1987-Constitution of India, 1950--Articles 25, 26, 32, 226. 
E 
Public Interest Litigation-Maintainability and scope of-Discussed 
One 'R' addressed a letter dated 3.2.1993 to one of the Judges of 
the High Court of Kerala stating serious irregularities, corrupt practices, 
maladministration and mismanagement prevailing in the Sree Krishna 
temple. He was called by the High Court and his statement was recorded F 
on 11.2.1993. The said letter was treated as an original petition, under 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in its order dated 
12.2.1993 highlighted 23 aspects of the matter which had been brought 
to its notice and appointed a District Judge as the Commissioner to make 
a general enquiry and in particular make a study on the various aspects G 
highlighted in the said complaint. The Commissioner pursuant to the order 
of the High Court seized all the records of the temple, examined 85 
witnesses and submitted as many as 15 interim reports. An SLP was filed 
against the order dated 12.2.1993 wherein certain observations were made. 
619 
H 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Another SLP was filed which was dismissed on 10.5.93. Pursuant to 
or in furtherance of the observations.made by this Court, an application 
was filed for determining the maintainability of the matter as a 
preliminary issue. 
'B 
Commissioner filed his final report on 25.9.93. High Court gave its 
judgement on 10.1.94 lamenting that the administration of temple has sunk 
to low levels, and this litigation would give a turning point for the 
improvement~and better .administration of the Devaswom. Aggrieved 
Managing Committee filed the present appeal. 
C 
:Disposing of-the.appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The people. of India. have turned to courts more and 
more for justice whenever there had been a legitimate grievance against 
the State's statutory authorities and other public organizations. People 
come to courts as the final .resort, to .protect their rights and to secure 
D probity in public life. Public interest litigation has come to stay and its 
necessity cannot be overemphasized. But with the passage of time, the 
process was sometimes abused. Proceedings were initiated in the name of 
public interest litigation for ventilating private .disputes •. Some petitions 
were publicity oriented. A balance was, therefore, required to.be struck. 
E 
[641-B,C, E, F) 
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Mis Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and 
Ors., (1976) 3 SCR 591 and Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, JT (2003) 
5 SC I, relied on. 
1.2. The Cour.t in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 
F 226 of the Constituti~n of India can entertain a petition filed. by any 
interested person in the welfare of the people who is in. a disadvantaged 
position and thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The 
Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such 
disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional 
G promises. (641~H; 642-A] 
H 
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp. SCC 87; People's Union 
for Deniocratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India, [19821 2 SCC 494; Bandhua 
' Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 161·and Janata Dal 
v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., f 19921 4 SCC 305, relied on. 
·' 
GURUVA YUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE v. C.K. RAJAN 
621 
1.3. Issues of public importance, en
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.