Royals’ silence on Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple disturbs Supreme Court

In another observation, seen as a snub to the erstwhile Travancore royal family, the two-judge bench said that it would not allow anyone to point fingers at the amicus curiae. The court endorsed the amicus curiae’s recommendation that the keys of the chambers holding the wealth of the temple should be handed over to a judicial officer nominated by the district judge. The amicus curiae also said that the inventorying should be done in the presence of a judicial officer. The decision on this is expected in the apex court’s order on April 24.

Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for scion of Travancore Royal family, raised objections to Subramaniam's report. The bench comprising Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said parties including Kerala Government will be given chance to respond to the findings in the report. Venugopal said everything in the report was not acceptable as "astonishing" things have been stated and in many cases wrong inferences have been drawn. He also said that it was also not correct on the part of the committee of experts to make inspection of the residential area of the royal family which is separated from the temple complex.

Additional Solicitor General K V Vishwanathan, appearing for Kerala Government, also disputed some facts raised by Subramaniam on the cleaning of the Padmatheertha Pond of the temple, the contract of which has been given to a private party and will cost around '90 lakh. The state government, in its affidavit, stated its readiness to clean the pond according to the directios of the amicus curiae.

Reading out a portion of the report, the amicus curiae said the Conservation Committee set up by the apex court was not holding regular meetings and those associated with the management of the temple were working in fear. He said huge amounts of gold and silver donated by devotees had neither been reported by trustees not accounted for and audited. And there has been no valuation of those metals for 30 years, he added. For 10 years the temple did not file income tax returns despite getting exemption benefit.

Besides, a gold plating machine hidden in the temple was found, making it mandatory that somebody independent must monitor the auditing of gold and silver, he said. The amicus curiae also said that during one month between February and March, Rs1.29 crore was offered by devotees.

Discrepancies in the number of bank accounts were also pointed out. While trustees claim only 14 accounts in five banks, there are 34 bank accounts in 17 banks. "Offerings by devotees are not accounted for. The public temple has been treated for all effects and purposes as a private fiefdom," Subramanium said.