Supreme Court to decide on scope of Savarna Hindus under Paramekkavu temple by-laws

In a case which could potentially snowball into a major controversy, the Supreme Court of India has issued notice in a dispute relating to the scope of “Savarna Hindu” under the by-laws of a temple management body..The dispute relates to the Paramekkavu Devaswom (Devaswom), which is the managing body of Paramekkavu Bhagavathy temple in the Thrissur district of Kerala..The by-law of the Devaswom mandates that only a ‘Malayali Savarna Hindu’ that is a Malayali person who is from either of the four principal castes – Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishyas or Shudras can be a member of the Devaswom. The relevant by-law reads as follows:.“All men and women who are of a sound mind and who are Malayali Savarna Hindu and are living as such and who are more than 18 years old are entitled to get their names included in the membership register if they satisfy one of the following conditions…”.The petitioner, Kishore, had sought the removal of respondent VM Sasi (respondent) from the Devaswom on the ground that he belonged to the Veluthedan community..The reasoning adopted by the petitioner was that the Veluthedan community was classified as ‘Backward Class’ for the purpose of reservation under Article 16 of the Constitution and were, hence, not Savarna Hindus..He had filed a suit seeking removal of the name of the respondent from the membership register of the Devaswom. The trial court granted interim relief, prohibiting the respondent from contesting the Devaswom elections. This injunction was upheld by the appellate court..The respondent had, under Article 227, challenged the orders of the lower courts in the Kerala High Court. The Kerala High Court held that Veluthedans are a sub-caste of the Nair community, Nairs come within the four fold of varnas, and are hence Savarna Hindus..This decision of the Kerala High Court has now been challenged in the Supreme Court..The petitioner’s submissions are two-fold..His first challenge is on the maintainability of the case. He has contended that the High Court erred in exercising supervisory jurisdiction..“Supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and adjudicate any and every error committed by a lower court, interlocutory orders or factual disputes. ….It is relevant to submit that neither second appeal nor revision is maintainable against a Civil Court’s grant of temporary injunction. The High Court cannot, despite the prohibition against appeal/ revision convert its jurisdiction under Article 227 to fill the vacuum…..The issues framed and findings rendered by the High Court in the present case are wholly outside the limited supervisory jurisdiction vested with the High Court under article 227.”.The second basis of his challenge is on the merits of the case – whether the Veluthedan community is a “Savarna Hindu” community..The petitioner has contended that reservations granted to ‘Veluthedans’ is relevant to the present issue of determining whether the community comes within the four Hindu varnas..“The fact relating to reservation under Articles 15/ 16 of the Constitution is relevant to the issue of determining whether Veluthedans come within the four Hindu varnas. The High Court’s rejection as to the relevance of this fact amounts to pre-judging a triable issue before the trial court.”.A Bench of Justices Anil R Dave and AM Khanwilkar had issued notice in the matter on October 10. When the case came up for hearing today, it was adjourned for next week. Senior Advocate R Basant appeared for the petitioner while advocate Haris Beeran appeared for the respondent.