Remanded

Suo Motu v. the Managing Committee

Kerala HC7 Dec 2020DBP/52/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This suo moto petition concerns allegations of persons entering the restricted 'Nalambalam' sanctum at Guruvayoor temple during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown. The Bench directed the Administrator to investigate, acting on the violation, and take steps to prevent recurrence.

What did the court decide?

The Administrator directed to investigate the alleged violation and take appropriate action within two weeks.

Suo Motu Vs the Managing Committee — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶6

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶7

DBP.No.52 OF 2020

PETITIONER:

SUO MOTU

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶12

2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶13

BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SC, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶14

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

DBP.No.52 OF 2020 2

ORDER

Ravikumar, J.

A whatsApp message which was forwarded by a learned Judge of this Court to draw the attention of the Devaswom Bench of this Court led to the registration of the captioned DBP. It pertains to the entry of some persons in the quassite building covering the sanctum sanctorum called 'Nalambalam' on 24.11.2020 when there was absolute restriction to devotees for entry inside the Nalambalam in Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayoor owing to the Covid – 19 protocol. Going by the allegation therein, on 24.11.2020, the persons named therein, were permitted to go inside the Nalambalam during the early hours in the morning and they had darshan from near the gradatory and they remained inside for about one hour. In the circumstances and taking into account the severity of the allegations, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to get instructions as relates the alleged incident. On instructions, the

¶19

DBP.No.52 OF 2020 3

¶20

learned Standing Counsel would submit that the allegation was not enquired into and needless to say that no action was also taken in the matter.

¶21

Owing to Covid – 19 pandemic with a view to avoid its outspread and interruption of quotidian poojas and offerings to the deity in case the santhies getting indisposed, a decision was taken by the Guruvayoor Devaswom, not to permit entry of devotees inside the Nalambalam. When such decision was annunciated as part of Covid protocol with aforesaid purposes, it has to be adhered to strictly. Admittedly, the Covid protocol prevalent at the relevant point of time, did not permit entry of anyone inside the Nalambalam except the Santhies, Tanthri and a few selected employees. Through virtual booking 1000 devotees were being permitted to have darshan, that too only from near the flag mast. When that be so, none should have been permitted to enter into the Nalambalam except the permittees. At any rate, during such period of restriction none should have been permitted to violate with impunity. There is nothing on record which would reveal that in respect of the incident any action has been taken against the erring employees. We express our deep displeasure on the said action as also the inaction. Still, we

¶22

DBP.No.52 OF 2020 4

¶23

think that it is for the Devaswom authorities to take or cause to take the needful and lawful action.

¶24

In the said circumstances, the Administrator of the

¶25

Guruvayoor Devaswom shall look into the matter firstly, and take appropriate action in the matter, as also to avoid recurrence of such violations. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

JUDGE

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

DCS/07.12.2020

Suo Motu v. the Managing Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suo Motu v. the Managing Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopalakrishnan K Vs Sandeep Biswas

A.Sajeevan Vs the Commissioner

Vishnu P.C. Vs Guruvayur Devaswom Administrator

Hamjad Ali, Vs the Commissioner of Customers (Prev)

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Examiner for Local Fund Audit

Mavelikkara Taluk Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Rajani Venugopal