An affidavit submitted in the Supreme Court by K.N. Satheesh, Executive Officer (EO) appointed by the court for the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, last week has questioned the ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’ of the present head of the royal family of erstwhile Travancore, and his continuance as head trustee of the temple, and most importantly, requests the court to initiate proceedings against him for practicing ‘untouchability’.
Revenue increased
The 25-page affidavit, apart from pointing out that the temple’s revenue shot up last year, goes on to point out that the head of the royal family, a businessman and managing director of a private company in Ernakulam, ‘cannot be expected to discharge effectively and satisfactorily his role in administration of the Trust.’
It says that the royal family head was not a regular visitor to the temple.
Giving a date-wise account, the EO says the head, from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015, had visited the temple only for 136 days. This made it clear that the head ‘cannot spare beyond one-third of his time to attend to temple matters among his busy schedule, which is quite inadequate and insufficient considering the voluminous and hectic activities and multiplicity of transactions going on in the temple on a daily basis.’
The affidavit also states that claims of the royal family head with regard to temple properties as belonging to him or any trust was ‘untenable’.
“Any alienation made in the past, without authority, has to be recovered and made to form part of the temple property,” it states.
Entry blocked
The Executive Officer also points out that entry of devotees was blocked for more than an hour during the royal family head’s visit to the temple.
“This procedure is not followed in any temple in the country even when the highest constitutional authority visits the temple,” the EO says, adding that the solitary visit of the head and blocking of devotees during this were ‘vestiges of the erstwhile monarchy, discriminatory in nature and not compatible with the rights of citizens in a democracy’ and that it had to be ended.
The attempt was ‘to bring back untouchability in a different form under the guise of customs and rituals,’ the EO says, requesting the court to initiate proceedings against the royal family head for ‘practicing untouchability.’
Seeks to recover alienation to temple property
‘Head trustee visited temple for only 136 days’
