,,,,,,
Anil K. Narendran, J.",,,,,,
1. This DBP is registered suo motu, based on a news item that appeared in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 04.02.2022 that, as part of 'Panthrandu",,,,,,
Namaskaram' in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura, under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board,t he devotees are made to wash",,,,,,
the feet of 12 brahmins as atonement for sins. The Registry was directed to issue a copy of the proceedings dated 04.02.2022 to the learned Senior,,,,,,
Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board and also the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman. A",,,,,,
copy of the news items appeared in Kerala Kaumudi Daily on 04.02.2022 was ordered to be enclosed along with the proceedings.,,,,,,
2. On 08.02.2022 when this DBP came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board, on instructions, submitted",,,,,,
that in connection with 'Panthrandu Namaskaram' in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura, the devotees are not made to wash the feet of 12",,,,,,
brahmins as atonement for sins, as stated in the news report. It is the Thantri, who wash the feet of 12 poojaries of Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, in",,,,,,
connection with 'Panthrandu Namaskaram'. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board sought two weeks' time to file affidavit on,,,,,,
behalf of the 2nd respondent.,,,,,,
3. On 25.02.2022, when this DBP came up for consideration, the 2nd respondent Cochin Devaswom Board has filed an affidavit dated 24.02.2022,",,,,,,
wherein it is stated that, when the above DBP came up for consideration on 08.02.2022, the Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board,",,,,,,
based on Annexure R2(A) written instructions given on 07.02.2022 submitted that, as stated in the news item appeared in the Kerala Kaumudi daily",,,,,,
dated 04.02.2022, the devotees are not made to wash the feet of the Brahmins in connection with ‘Panthrandu Namaskaram’ in Sree",,,,,,
Poornathrayeesa Temple. On the other hand, it is the Thanthri who washes the feet of 12 priests in connection with the ‘Panthrandu",,,,,,
Namaskaram’. Section 73A of the Travancoreâ€"Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 deals with duties of the Board. As per clause (i)",,,,,,
of Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are",,,,,,
performed promptly. In terms of Section 73A, it is the duty of the Cochin Devaswom Board to see that the regular traditional rights according to the",,,,,,
practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly. In view of the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act all,,,,,,
rituals and ceremonies in the temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Thripunithura shall continue to be executed as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin. The,,,,,,
news item appeared in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 04.02.2022 is against the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the practice being followed in,,,,,,
Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithura.",,,,,,
4. In  the  affidavit  dated  24.02.2022,  the  n 2d respondent has stated that, based on the news item appeared in Kerala",,,,,,
Kaumudi on 04.02.2022, the 1st respondent State sought for clarifications from the Cochin Devaswom Board. The Board in turn sought for a report",,,,,,
from the Assistant Commissioner, Thripunithura and also the Devaswom Officer, Thripunithura. Apart from that, on 11.02.2022, the Board convened",,,,,,
a meeting with the members of Akhila Thanthri Samajam. In the said meeting a decision has been taken to rename the vazhipadu as,,,,,,
‘Samaradhana’. By Annexure R2(B) communication dated 21.02.2022 of the Commissioner, the decision so taken was communicated to the 1",,,,,,
st respondent State.,,,,,,
5. By the order dated 25.02.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022, Sree Raghava Puram Sabha Yogam, represented by its President was impleaded as the",,,,,,
additional 4th respondent and by the order in I.A.No.2 of 2022, Akhilakerala Thantri Mandalam, represented by its General Secretary was impleaded",,,,,,
as additional 5th respondent. Later, by the order dated 04.03.2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022, Yogakshema Sabha, represented by its Secretary was",,,,,,
impleaded as additional 6th respondent.,,,,,,
6. The additional 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 03.03.2022. The additional 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit on,,,,,,
28.02.2022. The additional 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 05.03.2022. In the counter affidavits filed by additional respondents 4 to 6,,,,,,
various legal and factual contentions have been taken.,,,,,,
7. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent State, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board, for",,,,,,
respondents 2 and 3, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent and also the learned counsel for the",,,,,,
6th respondent.,,,,,,
8. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board contended that as per clause (i) of Section 73A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu,,,,,,
Religious Institutions Act, 1950, it is the duty of Cochin Devaswom Board to see that regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in",,,,,,
Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura, are performed promptly. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, notwithstanding the",,,,,,
provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 62, the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at",,,,,,
Thripunithura shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin. Based on the news item appeared in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated,,,,,,
04.02.2022, the 1st respondent State sought for clarifications from Cochin Devaswom Board, which was furnished vide Annexure R2(B)",,,,,,
communication dated 21.02.2022. Apart from that the Board convened a meeting with the members of Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and in that,,,,,,
meeting held on 11.02.2022 a decision has been taken to rename the vazhipadu as 'Samaradhana'.,,,,,,
9. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent and also the learned counsel for the 6th respondent",,,,,,
would raise contentions relying on Section 62 and Section 73A of the Act. They would submit that 'Panthrandu Namaskaram' in Sree,,,,,,
Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura is a ritual, which has to be continued as such, in view of the statutory mandate of sub-section (2) of Section",,,,,,
62 of the Act, which starts with a non-obstante clause.",,,,,,
10. The learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent State would submit that, based on the news item that appeared in Kerala Kaumudi",,,,,,
daily on 04.02.2022, the 1st respondent sought for clarification from Cochin Devaswom Board and the Commissioner furnished clarifications, vide",,,,,,
Annexure R2(B) communication dated 21.02.2022.,,,,,,
11. The specific stand taken in the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent is that the devotees are not made to wash the feet of Brahmins in connection,,,,,,
with ‘Panthrandu Namaskaram’ in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura. It is the Thanthri who washes the feet of 12 priests in,,,,,,
connection with ‘Panthrandu Namaskaram’. The said fact is evident from the counter affidavits filed by additional respondents 4 to 6.,,,,,,
12. Chapter VIII of the Travancoreâ€"Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board. Section 62 of the Act deals with,,,,,,
vesting of administration in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and",,,,,,
Hindu Religious Institutions which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949 either under",,,,,,
Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act, 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1081, and all their",,,,,,
properties and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the Cochin",,,,,,
Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62, notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the regulation and control of all",,,,,,
,,,,,,
21. In the instant case 'Panthandu Namskaram' in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura is a ritual performed in that Temple from time,,,,,,
immemorial. The said fact is evident from the relevant extract of the remedial measures suggested in 'Ashtamangala Prasnam' conducted in the year,,,,,,
1999, a portion of which has already been extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 17. The said ritual is one performed by the Thanthri of the Temple,",,,,,,
who washes the feet of 12 priests. The said fact is evident from the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and also the counter affidavits filed by,,,,,,
additional respondents 4 to 6. As part of 'Panthrandu Namskaram' in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, the devotees are not made to wash the feet of 12",,,,,,
Brahmins, as atonement of sins, as stated in the news report that appeared in Kerala Kaumudi daily dated 04.02.2022.",,,,,,
22. In view of the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 62,",,,,,,
the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura, shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by",,,,,,
the Ruler of Cochin. Similarly, in view of the provisions under Section 73A of the Act, it shall be the duty of the Cochin Devaswom Board to see that",,,,,,
regular traditional rites according to practice prevalent in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple are performed promptly. Therefore, no interference with the",,,,,,
religious rite, namely, 'Panthrandu Namaskaram' performed in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, by the Thanthri is legally permissible either by the",,,,,,
Cochin Devaswom Board or by the 1st respondent State. As held by the Apex Court in Sarika [(2018) 17 SCC 112], there is a constitutional obligation",,,,,,
to preserve the religious practices of all religions and there is also a corresponding duty to act in that direction. The religious practices and pujas are,,,,,,
required to be performed in accordance with the ancient rituals and practices and it is not for Cochin Devaswom Board or the 1st respondent State to,,,,,,
interfere with such practices. In that view of the matter, we find that even the decision taken by the Cochin Devaswom Board, as reflected in",,,,,,
Annexure R2(B), to change the name of the ritual as 'Samaradhana' is legally unsustainable.",,,,,,
23. We make it clear that we have not considered the factual contentions raised in the counter affidavits filed by additional respondents 4, 5 and 6,",,,,,,
since the issue involved in this DBP is decided with reference to the legal contentions raised by the parties.,,,,,,
24. In Hindustan Times v. High Court of Allahabad [(2011) 13 SCC 155] the Apex Court noticed thatt he media, be it electronic or print media, is",,,,,,
generally called the fourth pillar of democracy. The media, in all its forms, whether electronic or print, discharges a very onerous duty of keeping the",,,,,,
people knowledgeable and informed. The impact of media is far-reaching as it reaches not only the people physically but also influences them,,,,,,
mentally. It creates opinions, broadcasts different points of view, brings to the fore wrongs and lapses of the Government and all other governing",,,,,,
bodies and is an important tool in restraining corruption and other ill-effects of society. The media ensures that the individual actively participates in the,,,,,,
decision-making process. The right to information is fundamental in encouraging the individual to be a part of the governing process. The enactment of,,,,,,
the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the most empowering step in this direction. The role of people in a democracy and that of active debate is",,,,,,
essential for the functioning of a vibrant democracy. With this immense power, comes the burden of responsibility. With the huge amount of",,,,,,
information that they process, it is the responsibility of the media to ensure that they are not providing the public with information that is factually",,,,,,
wrong, biased or simply unverified information.",,,,,,
25. Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of the media, be it electronic or print, to ensure that they are not providing the public with information",,,,,,
that is factually wrong based on unverified information.,,,,,,
With the above observations and the finding hereinbefore at paragraph 24, this DBP is disposed of.",,,,,,
