IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) SLP (Civil) No.11295 of 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: Sri Marthanda Varma & Anr. Petitioners Versus T.P. Sundararajan & Ors. Respondents WITH SLP (Civil) No. 17081-17082 of 2011 Rama Varma Petitioner Versus T.P. Sundararajan & Ors. Respondents AND SLP (Civil) No. 12361 of 2011 Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents REPORT OF THE AMICUS CURIAE Filed through: Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Advocate-on-Record Page 2 of 93

Contents I. A brief background of the dispute .................................................................. 4 II. History and traditions of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple ............ 42 III. Recommendations of the Amicus Curiae .................................................... 64 A. Submission of future interim reports .......................................................... 66 B. Strengthening of vaults ................................................................................. 66 C. Storage of inventory data .............................................................................. 67 D. Adverse reports by the Home Department of the Government of Kerala ............................................................................................................................. 68 E. Restraint on the media .................................................................................. 70 F. Suggested steps for effective Temple Administration .............................. 71 G. Implementation of security measures ......................................................... 72 H. Extension of time for inventorisation .......................................................... 74 I. Recommendations on Temple renovation and restoration ..................... 74 J. Compiling the Temples traditions .............................................................. 74 K. Audit of Temple accounts and sources of funding ................................... 75 L. Listing the Temple as a World Heritage Site ............................................. 77 M. Next steps on representations made to the Amicus Curiae .................... 78 N. Supplementary Recommendations ............................................................. 78 IV. Epilogue ........................................................................................................... 91 Page 3 of 93 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) SLP (Civil) No.11295 of 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: Sri Marthanda Varma & Anr. Petitioners Versus T.P. Sundararajan & Ors. Respondents WITH SLP (Civil) No. 17081-17082 of 2011 Rama Varma Petitioner Versus T.P. Sundararajan & Ors. Respondents AND SLP (Civil) No. 12361 of 2011 Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents REPORT OF THE AMICUS CURIAE 1. This Honble Court appointed the Amicus Curiae on 23rd August 2012. Thereafter, the Amicus Curiae visited Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, between 28th and 30th September, 2012, to assess first-hand the administration and general state of affairs at the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. This report is the result of the Amicus Curiaes review of the Temple premises (including the vaults, or Kallaras as they are Page 4 of 93 called in Malayalam, that house the treasures of the Temple); his interaction with the State Government which was represented by the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary; and the Royal family of the erstwhile State of Travancore, which was represented by His Highness Sri Marthanda Varma, Princess Gouri Lakshmi Bayi and Sri Adithya Varma; as well as members of the Temple staff, such as the priests and the administrators; and equally importantly, members of the Overseeing and Expert Committee1. 2. Of course, no review of a temple as unique and famous as the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple can be undertaken or completed without understanding and appreciating its history and heritage that stretches back thousands of years. The Amicus Curiae has therefore spent a number of hours studying with keen interest, the history and the rituals of this great Temple, which have informed many of his recommendations and suggestions in this report. 3. This report is divided into four parts: Part I provides an overview of the dispute before this Honble Court; Part II discusses the history and heritage of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple; Part III contains the recommendations and suggestions of the Amicus Curiae; while Part IV is an epilogue. I. A BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE 1. The present Special Leave Petitions are directed against the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court dated 31st January 2011 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 36487 of 2009 (T.P. Sundararajan v. State of Kerala & Ors.) and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4256 of 2010 (Uthradam Thirunal 1 A list of the participants of the meeting held on 29th September 2012 at the office of the Expert Committee is annexed with this report and marked as Annexure A. Page 5 of 93 Marthanda Varma and Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple Represented by the Executive Officer v. Union of India). By a common judgment, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court essentially held that, upon the death of the last Ruler of the erstwhile State of Travancore on 20th July 1991, the Petitioner (His Highness Sri Marthanda Varma) did not step into the shoes of the last Ruler and could not therefore claim management rights over the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. Though the High Court also held that the Executive Officer of the Temple was appointed without any legal authority, the Court chose not to interfere with that appointment. 2. Consequently, the High Court passed a series of directions in exercise of its jurisdiction as parens patriae, and concluded that the Temple and its properties and assets would revert back and vest in the State Government under Article 295 and Article 296 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in order to preserve the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, as well as its treasures, it was the duty of the State Government to make arrangements in the same way as in the case of State-run temples that were handed over to the (State) Devaswom Board. 3. The Kerala High Court even observed that: There is no purpose in keeping the treasures of the Temple acquired by it in the course of several centuries as a mystery and if all the storage rooms (kallaras) are opened and the treasures are exhibited in the museum to be set up in the Temple compound, the glory of the Temple and the State will get a boost and probably the great Temple will become a major tourist attraction and income earner. 4. The Kerala High Court therefore ordered that:- i) There shall be a direction to the State Government to immediately take steps to constitute a body corporate trust or other legal Page 6 of 93 authority to take over the control of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, its assets and management to regulate the same in accordance with all the traditions hitherto followed. This shall be done within a period of three months from now. ii) There will be an order of injunction against the Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No.4256/2010 who are Respondents 3 and 5 in the other W.P. (C) against the opening of any of the Kallaras or removing any of the articles from the Temple. However, they are free to use such of the articles required for rituals, ceremonies and regular poojas in the Temple until Temple is taken over by the authority as stated above. iii) There will be a direction to the authority constituted by the Government to open all kallaras, make inventory of the entire articles and create a museum and exhibit all the treasures of the Temple for the public, devotees and the tourists to view the same which could be arranged on payment basis in the Temple premises itself. The first Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.4256/2010 and the successors from the Royal family should be permitted to participate in the rituals of the Temple like the Arattu procession, which is symbolic of the presence of the Padmanabhadasa in the Festival. iv) Considering the valuables and treasures in the Temple, the Government should consider handing over security of the Temple to a team of Police or at least provide Police assistance to the Temple security staff. The Government should ensure that the opening of Kallaras (storage places) and the preparation of inventory are done by a team of responsible and honest officers either from the Government or from the authority constituted to manage the Temple in terms of the directions above so that there should not be any allegation of pilferage or manipulation. Inventory should be prepared in the presence of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No.4256/2010 or their agents towards the proof of the items taken over from their custody. 5. The Petitioners, who are aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, have preferred the present Special Leave Petitions. 6. On 2nd May 2011, the said Special Leave Petitions came up for hearing before their Lordships, Honble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik. On that date, this Honble Court was pleased to pass the following order:- Issue notice. Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned counsel of M/s Temple Law Firm, accepts notice for respondent No.1 (T.P. Sundararajan). Page 7 of 93 Interim stay of direction (i) of the impugned judgment which directs taking over of the assets and management of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, Thiruvananthapuram. Interim stay of directions (ii) to (iv) of the impugned judgment subject to the following interim directions:- (a) There shall be a detailed inventory of the articles/valuables/ ornaments in Kallaras described as (a) to (f) in the Second Schedule to the Plaint in O.S. No.625/2007 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The inventory shall be held in the presence of the following observers:- (i) Two observers appointed by this Court namely, Justice M.N. Krishnan and Justice C.S. Rajan, retired Judges of the Kerala High Court. (ii) The first petitioner and the second petitioner. (iii) A senior officer of the State Government, namely the Secretary, Devaswom Department or his nominated representative. (iv) A senior officer nominated by the Secretary, Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Culture, Government of India who is stationed at Kerala. (v) The PIL petitioner (first respondent). Justice M.N. Krishnan shall be in charge of organising the inventory, fixing of schedules. The entire expenditure of inventory shall be met by the Petitioners. He is also authorised to seek police security at the time of such inventory. The observers shall decide upon the procedure and documentation of the inventory including videographing/ photographing the articles. (b) In regard to the articles in kallaras (c) and (d) used for regular rituals and the ornaments in kallaras (e) and (f) said to be in the custody of Periya Nambi and Thekkedom Nambi, the existing practices, procedures and rituals may be followed in regard to the opening and closing of the Kallaras and using the articles therein. As far as Kallaras (a) and (b), which is reportedly not opened for more than a century, they shall be opened only for the purpose of making inventory of the articles and then closed and sealed again. (c) The inventory shall be filed in this Court and copies of the inventory be given to all participating parties and observers. (d) The existing temple security shall be further strengthened by additional security from the local police. (e) The first petitioner and his family shall be entitled to participate in all temple festivals and rituals as hitherto before. Let a copy of this order be sent to Justice M.N. Krishnan, Justice C.S. Rajan, the Secretary, Devaswom Department, State of Kerala and the Secretary, Department of Archaeology, Government of India for due implementation. List in August, 2011 for further orders. Page 8 of 93 7. Then, on 8th July 2011, this Honble Court directed that:- Opening of kallara B is to be kept in abeyance till further orders. Kallara A also need not be opened for the present. List on 14.7.2011 as first item. 8. Soon thereafter, the respondent State of Kerala filed an affidavit dated 14th July 2011 and the stand of the State was recorded by this Honble Court (in its order dated 21st July 2011) as follows:- Ownership: All articles found in the Kallaras of Shree Padmanabha Swamy Temple (including objects of value gold ornaments, precious stones and antiques) belong to the Deity (Temple) and neither the State Government nor the family of ex-rulers of Travancore can have any claim over them. Storage/Exhibition: The ornaments/antiques are not suitable or sufficient for creating a separate museum. All the articles being property of the temple, should remain within the confines of temple premises. It is neither practical nor advisable to remove them from the temple environs security. Security: A senior officer of the rank of Additional Director General of Police has been put in charge of the security of the temple. A control room has been made operational. A special team of police officers has been entrusted with the task of studying the security requirements. Ensuring adequate security for the temple is the primary responsibility of the government and it will do everything necessary for acquisition of the state-of-the-art security systems (which are least obtrusive and most effective) and install them shortly. The temple will be guarded round the clock. Commandos have been posted to guard the gates. 9. The Executive Officer of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple also filed an affidavit dated 14th July 2011 in which the views of His Highness Sri Marthanda Varma, the Sole Trustee, and the Executive Officer of the Temple were expressed. Those views have also been extracted by this Honble Court in its order dated 21st July 2011:- Ownership: Page 9 of 93 All articles, ornaments, valuables, precious stones, antiques without exception found in the Kallaras belong to the Presiding Deity of Shree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and neither Mr. Marthanda Varma nor his family members have any claim over them. Mr. Marthanda Varma merely administers the property/assets of the Deity and the temple as the Trustee. Storage/Exhibition: The articles found in Kallara A can be segregated into three categories:- (i) Articles having historic/heritage/artistic value considered priceless can be kept in the Kallara itself and taken out periodically for being exhibited on special occasions within the temple premises for the benefit of the devotees and general public; (ii) Even articles which have only some historic/heritage/ artistic value and cannot be considered to be priceless shall be kept in the safe custody of Kallara; (iii) Articles having monetary value but no historic/heritage/ artistic value, could be disposed of and the proceeds used for purchasing immovable properties for the renovation and maintenance of the temple and for education including establishment of a Veda Pathsala and a Thanthirika Peedom for imparting training and grooming Temple priests. Inventory: Videography and photography of the articles in Kallara A may be avoided, as the inventory has already been completed. But if it is found that the videography/photography is necessary for completing the inventory, the same may be carried out strictly under the supervision and the films/cartridges shall be deposited in a sealed cover so that unauthorized copies are not made. As the primary object of the inventory is to ascertain what is available and not disposal of sale, there is no need to have a valuation. However the services of a conservationist or expert in antiques may be availed for categorizing the articles and completing the inventory in a scientific manner. Security arrangements: While installing security systems, in particular CCTVs and other electronic devices, care should be taken in regard to two aspects. First is that the customs/traditions of the temple should be respected and taken note of. Second is that worship by the devotees should not be disturbed. The Police personnel on security duty, when inside the temple, should be unobtrusive and comply with the dress code of the temple. 10. Sri Rama Varma, the Petitioner in the companion Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17081-17082 of 2011, also made certain suggestions, which have been extracted by this Honble Court in its order dated 21st July 2011:- Page 10 of 93 (i) The articles found from the Kallaras should not be removed from the sanctum sanctorum of the temple nor should be exhibited outside the temple. A few sample items of antique/archaeological value may be exhibited in the premises of the temple complex. Alternatively they may be exhibited in the museum adjoining the temple after making appropriate arrangements for display and security. (ii) Opening Kallara-B may be avoided. If it is to be opened that should be done after conducting the traditional Deva Prashnam. 11. In such light, this Honble Court, vide order dated 21st July 2011, directed the following:- .... .... 4. After considering the submissions made during the arguments and the suggestions in the affidavits, we find that action is required in the following areas:- a) A detailed inventory of the articles in Kallaras A and C to F with videography/photography shall have to be completed under the supervision of an Expert Committee. The videographer/photographer employed for this purpose shall have security clearance from the local Police authorities. b) The services of the Experts/Conservationists shall have to be availed so that handling the articles at the time of inventory or disturbing the environment in which they were stored in the Kallaras for centuries does not affect the articles. c) Adequate and proper arrangements will have to be made for security. This would involve not only policing the premises but also having security measures/systems as also provision of a strong room/vaults/steel lining in the Kallaras with the assistance of a security expert. 5. To achieve the aforesaid results, we hereby constitute the following Expert Committee:- (1) Dr. C.V. Ananda Bose, Director General of National Museum and Vice-Chancellor, National Museum Institute, New Delhi : Co-ordinator (2) Dr. M.B. Nair, Head of Conservation Department, National Museum Institute, New Delhi : Member (3) Nominee of the Director, Archaeological Survey of India (from its science/research wing). : Member (4) Nominee of the Governor of Reserve Bank of India who is an Expert from its security wing. : Member Page 11 of 93 (5) The Executive Officer of the Temple : Member 6. The said Expert Committee is entrusted with the following responsibilities:- (a) To organize the inventory by videography/photography of the articles in Kallaras A, C to F and supervise such inventory and arrange for proper storage of the articles in the respective Kallaras after completion of the inventory. (b) To examine and categorise the articles into three groups: (i) Articles/ornaments having historic/heritage/artistic/ antique value. (ii) Articles that are required for regular use in the temple for religious purpose. (iii) Articles and ornaments which cannot be considered to be having any historic/heritage/artistic/antique value, but having merely a monetary value. (c) To draw up a long term and short term measure for preservation, conservation, maintenance of the articles/antiques in Kallaras of the Temple. (d) Prepare a scheme for providing security measures in the temple premises and in the Kallaras. (e) Examine whether any of the articles are worthy of exhibition for the benefit of the devotees and if so examine the feasibility of creation of a high security museum within the temple premises or the adjoining museum. (f) Examine and give an opinion whether it is necessary to open Kallara B at this stage. 7. In view of the constitution of the said Expert Committee, there is no need to continue the large Committee of Observers. In place of the seven member Observer Committee earlier appointed, the following smaller Overseeing Committee is appointed to supervise and guide the working of the Expert Committee and to complete the inventory and continue as Observers:- (i) Justice M.N. Krishnan - Co-ordinator (ii) Mr. Marthanda Varma (or his special nominee) - Member (iii) Secretary, Devaswom Department of Government of Kerala (or his special nominee) - Member 8. We also issue the following supplementary directions:- (a) The members of the Expert Committee shall schedule their visit in co-ordination with the Co-ordinator of the Overseeing Committee, so that the entire inventory is carried out continuously and uninterruptedly on day-to-day basis. (b) The state government and the Temple Trust shall meet the expenses of the said Expert Committee including their travel, lodging and other expenses. Page 12 of 93 (c) Except the members of the Overseeing Committee, Expert Committee and the personnel required for the actual physical handling and security, no unauthorized person shall be permitted to be present at the time of inventory. (d) The reports in the Media about the value of the articles in the Kallaras (admittedly unverified and speculative), without seeing or examining the articles, is disturbing. We trust that the media will show more care and responsibility in such matters and avoid baseless speculations which are likely to mislead the public. (e) The members of the Overseeing Committee/the Expert Committee are expected to give their opinions and reports only to this Court and none else. 12. The Expert Committee submitted its Interim Report I, dated 17th August 2011, to this Honble Court which consequently passed the following order on 2nd September 2011:- Registry is directed to make available copies of Interim Report-I dated 17.8.2011 of the Expert Committee to learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.7, respondents 3 to 6 in SLP (C) No.12361/2011 and to learned counsel for the State Government. List on 12.9.2011. 13. However, on 9th September 2011, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter stood adjourned to 16th September 2011. 14. On 16th September 2011, this Honble Court was pleased to direct that the matter be listed on 22nd September 2011 for interim orders. 15. On 22nd September 2011, this Honble Court passed the following interim orders after studying the Expert Committees Interim Report I:- We have examined the interim report dated 17.8.2011 of the Expert Committee and the additional information submitted on 12.9.2011. Having considered the said report and the submissions of the parties, the following interim directions are issued:- SECURITY MEASURES: 1.1) The Expert Committee has identified thirteen security issues and suggested sixteen security measures to be put in place. A copy thereof has already been made available to the State Government and the Temple Administration. Page 13 of 93 The state government has submitted that Security Technical Committee Report putting forth an Integrated Multi-Layered Security System for the Temple, for our perusal. In view of security concerns, we do not propose to extract either the security issues raised or the security measures suggested by the Expert Committee or the security measures proposed by the state government. 1.2) The state government has submitted that it has the expertise and capability to provide the necessary security measures; and it is ready and willing to provide the same at its cost. The state government has assured that it would spare no effort or cost to provide the best security cover and has stated that there is no need to indent the service of any central security force like CRPF as suggested by the Expert Committee, for strengthening the security. Having examined the Security Technical Committee Report furnished by the state government and its assurance to put in place an Integrated Multi-Layered Security System for the Temple in a time bound manner, we are satisfied that the state government would be in a position to execute the security plan. There is no need for the state government to requisition the services of any central security agency. 1.3) The state government shall take note of the sixteen security measures that have been suggested by the Expert Committee in its Interim Report dated 17.8.2011 and promptly implement the Integrated Multi-Layered Security System explained and suggested in its Security Technical Committee Report. In implementing the security system, the state government will take note of temple traditions, customs and practices, and accommodate the views of the temple administration as far as possible and feasible. WORK PLAN 2.1) The Expert Committee has suggested Digital Archiving of Temple Antiques (for short DATA) to achieve the following: (i) Recording of detailed information after examination and assigning an Antique Identification Number/Code; (ii) to store the information in a computerized database; (iii) recording of a 3D image of the object and link it to the Data Base. The Expert Committee is permitted to implement the said DATA procedure. 2.2) The Expert Committee has recommended appointment of Kerala State Electronic Corporation (KELTRON), a state government undertaking with technical expertise from Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), an unit of Department of Space for implementing the work plan. Having regard to the security concerns and approval of the said agency by the state government, we accept the suggestion that the DATA work should be executed by the said government undertaking instead of inviting tenders from private agencies. 2.3) KELTRON has estimated the cost of executing the work to be Rs.3,16,35,000/- made up of Rs.1,65,35,000/- for Page 14 of 93 hardware, Rs.40,00,000/- for software, and Rs.1,11,00,000/- for services and miscellaneous items. The cost appears to be very high and far exceeds the figures shown in the Interim Report. The feasibility of borrowing/hiring the equipment can be considered. The software cost and servicing cost requires drastic reduction. However, KELTRON being a state government undertaking and VSSC, the technical expert being a unit of Department of Space, the Expert Committee may proceed to entrust the work to KELTRON after involving the state government in the process of negotiations relating to cost and the schedule of payment. We do not propose to approve the said price. As the state government has to bear the expenditure involved, it will take the final decision on the pricing after negotiations, in consultation with the Expert Committee. The state government shall nominate a Nodal Officer for this purpose failing which the Secretary, Devaswom Department shall be the Nodal Officer. TIME FRAME: 3. The Committee has suggested time framework of one year to complete the entire work. Efforts shall be made to shorten the time schedule without sacrificing quality of work. To ensure that the time schedule is maintained, we request the state government to take appropriate decisions and release the required funds without any delay. The Expert committee shall maintain constant supervision and follow up, to avoid delay. KALLARA B: 4. The issue relating to Kallara B shall be considered after substantial progress is made in regard to documentation, categorization, security, preservation, conservation, maintenance and storage relating to the contents in the other Kallaras. FUNDING: 5.1) The committee has requested for sanction of an interim budget outlay of Rs.2,98,82,000/-. This will be considered by the state government and appropriate amounts shall be sanctioned and released. The Expert Committee shall ensure that the expenditure is kept to be the minimum and avoid any kind of wasteful expenditure. Having regard to the huge expenditure that is contemplated, the state government shall provide for appropriate accounting/audit assistance so that the fund utilization is economical, efficient and transparent. 5.2) The Temple Administration has expressed its inability to make any significant contribution towards the expenditure involved, having regard to its limited resources. However, having regard to its participatory status, the Temple Administration shall contribute Rs.25,00,000/- per year towards the funds required for completing the work plan and for security arrangements. The balance shall be contributed by the state government. MISCELLANEOUS: Page 15 of 93 6.1) The Expert Committee may take all necessary steps for preservation and conservation of the contents of Kallaras. 6.2) Temple Administration shall identify a suitable space (keeping in view the security concerns and the temple traditions) for construction of a safety vault/storage space as per Reserve Bank of India norms in consultation with the Expert Committee and commence construction without delay. 6.3) To maintain confidentiality and avoid logistic problems, the Temple Administration shall make available an independent office space with proper security in the temple premises for the Overseeing Committee and the Expert Committee, for the duration of the project. 6.4) The Expert Committee has reported that the term of the office of the Coordinator Dr. Anand Bose, under the Central Government has come to an end on 20.9.2011. If his services are not extended by the central government, we request the state government to consider engaging his services as a Co-ordinator of the Expert Committee for a period of one year so that there will be continuity and co-ordination in the functioning of the Expert Committee. 6.5) The state government and the Temple Administration shall extend their full cooperation to the Overseeing Committee and the Expert Committee for execution of the DATA project and security measures. 6.6) The Expert Committee will take the approval of the Overseeing Committee before taking final decisions on matters of policy and execution. 7. List after three months for the next Interim Report of the Expert Committee and for final disposal.2 16. The Expert Committee submitted its Interim Report II, dated 30th December 2011, on 5th January 2012. In that report, the Expert Committee divided the directions of this Honble Court into three parts: those relating to the responsibility of the State Government, the Temple Administration and the Expert Committee. As far as the State Government was concerned, this Honble Court had directed it to: (i) release adequate funds to implement the directions of this Honble Court; 2 Certain subsequent orders passed by the Registrar and the Judge-in-Chambers are not being extracted in the instant report of the Amicus Curiae. Page 16 of 93 (ii) provide accounting/audit assistance to the Expert Committee; (iii) negotiate and reduce the cost so that digital archiving of antiques could be entrusted to KELTRON; (iv) implement the security scheme for the protection of valuables in the Kallaras; and (v) appoint a Nodal Officer for negotiation with KELTRON. 17. The Temple Administration, on the other hand, had been directed to: (i) release Rs.25 lakhs for the work relating to the Temple; (ii) provide office accommodation for the Expert Committee; and , (iii) construct a safety vault/storage (although the Amicus Curiae is unable to discover such a direction in the orders). 18. As far as the responsibility of the Expert Committee is concerned, this Honble Court had directed the Committee to: (i) reduce the time frame to complete the inventory; (ii) reduce the expenditure without sacrificing the quality. 19. The Expert Committee however recorded that: (i) the State Government had not yet released adequate funds; (ii) the State Government had not yet provided accounting/audit assistance to the Expert Committee; (iii) on the issue of negotiation and reduction of cost, while the cost had been reduced through negotiation with KELTRON, the work could not be entrusted for want of funds; (iv) out of the 14 important security measures, action had been taken in respect of two and initiated in respect of one; Page 17 of 93 (v) a Nodal Officer for negotiation with KELTRON was being appointed; (vi) the Temple Administration had not yet released Rs.25 lakhs; (vii) the Expert Committee had not yet been provided office accommodation; and (viii) action had not yet been taken for the construction of the safety vault/storage. 20. As far as the directions to the Expert Committee were concerned, the Expert Committee assured that time would be reduced at every stage of the work but it would be subject to the releasing of funds without any delay by the State Government. The Expert Committee further assured that the expenditure would be kept at a minimum without compromising on quality. 21. In the meanwhile, the State of Kerala filed an application (I.A. No.10/2011 in SLP No.11295 of 2011) requesting that Dr. M.Velayudhan Nair be appointed as the Coordinator of the Expert Committee and informing this Honble Court that the services of Dr. C.V. Ananda Bose (who was named as the Coordinator in this Honble Courts order dated 21st July 2011) need not be continued upon his superannuation. Accordingly, the State of Kerala prayed that this Honble Court approve the nomination of the Secretary (Devaswom) as the nodal officer pursuant to the order of this Honble Court dated 22nd September 2011 and in view of the superannuation of Dr. Ananda Bose, appoint Dr. M.V. Nair as the Coordinator of the Expert Committee. 22. On 5th January 2012, this Honble Court approved the nomination of the Secretary (Devaswom) as the Nodal Officer (the said officer was Page 18 of 93 nominated by Sri Jay Kumar, the then Additional Chief Secretary and the present Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala). This Honble Court further directed that Dr. M. Velayudhan Nair would act as the Coordinator of the Expert Committee, and that copies of the Expert Committees Interim Report II should be provided to all the parties. This Honble Courts order therefore read as follows:- By this application made by the State of Kerala, it is prayed that nomination of Secretary (Devaswoms) as the Nodal Officer may be approved. We record the statement of Ms. Liz Mathew, learned counsel for the State of Kerala that Mr. Jai Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary has been appointed as the Nodal Officer. The nomination made by the State Government is approved by this order. We are informed that Dr. Anand Bose, who was earlier appointed as Co-ordinator has also retired. Having regard to this fact, we direct that Dr. M.V. Nair shall now act as Co-ordinator of the Expert Committee. I.A. No. 10 stands disposed of accordingly. I.A. No. 11 of 2011: Heard Mr. S. Thanuskodi, applicant in person. Application for intervention is rejected. S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11295/11, 12361/11 and 17081-17082/2011: Let copy of the Interim Report-II dated December 30, 2011 submitted by the Expert Committee be provided to all the parties. We expect the parties to take necessary action required to be taken by them as per the earlier orders of this Court without any delay. Let the Special Leave Petitions come up for consideration of the Interim Report-II on February 15, 2012 at 3.30 P.M. 23. The Expert Committee submitted its Interim Report III under the stewardship of Dr. M. Velayudhan Nair. The said report recorded that:- (i) the State Government had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores to KELTRON; Page 19 of 93 (ii) the State Government had initiated steps for providing funds for expenses towards the functioning of the Expert Committee; (iii) the 16 points of the security scheme implementation were reviewed and a progress report had been appended; (iv) the Temple Administration had provided an office for the Expert Committee at Ramanamadam and the meeting of the Overseeing Committee and the Expert Committee took place in the said office on 9th February 2011; (v) the Temple Administration had opened a bank account in the name of the Expert Committee and a sum of Rs.15 lakhs had been transferred by the Temple in the said account; (vi) work space had been provided inside the Temple for the effective functioning of the Expert Committee; (vii) as far as the Expert Committee was concerned, it had reduced the expenses for its functioning from Rs.1.48 crores to Rs.75 lakhs per year, without affecting the quality of its work; (viii) the Expert Committee had decided to start the documentation process as per the work plan approved by this Honble Court; (ix) KELTRON had started importing equipment necessary for the inventorying work; (x) software had been developed for documentation of the valuables; (xi) the first successful demonstration of documentation was held off-site on 7th February 2012, in the presence of experts, and the second onsite demonstration was held on 9th February 2012; Page 20 of 93 (xii) the best available technology was being used for the inventory work and that the process would be reviewed after completing the process for 100 objects; (xiii) the Expert Committee would take advice from international agencies without compromising confidentiality and without acting in any manner inconsistent with the directions of this Honble Court; (xiv) the Expert Committee was now fully equipped for starting the documentation session from 10th February 2012. However, since Pariharakriya of the Temple was scheduled to be held, the commencement was deferred to 20th February 2012. The Expert Committee however pointed out that though it was starting the process of making an inventory with Vault C, from which the valuables are taken out occasionally for rituals, unless a proper vault as ordered by this Honble Court was constructed the progress of the inventory work would be affected. The Expert Committee therefore sought directions for:- a. the construction of a security vault on the norms of the Reserve Bank of India within a period of 3 months; b. immediate release of funds as per the revised budget from the State Government to enable effective and proper functioning of the Expert Committee; c. permitting the Expert Committee to take advice from international agencies with adequate experience in similar ventures, without compromising confidentiality and without violating the orders of this Honble Court; Page 21 of 93 d. opening and closing of the Kallaras on a daily basis according to requirements for implementing the work plan. In addition, the Interim Report also annexed a chart showing the progress/status as far as the security scheme was concerned. 24. Thereafter, on 15th February 2012, this Honble passed the following order:- Let the copy of the Interim Report-III submitted by the Expert Committee be provided to all the parties. List the matters for consideration on February 23, 2012 at 3 P.M. In the meanwhile, it is directed that Principal Sub-Judge, Thiruvananthapuram shall not pass any order/or proceed with the O.S. No. 625 of 2007. 25. It may be noted at this juncture that O.S. No.625/2007 (cited in the order above) had been instituted by one N. Vishwambaran and one R. Padmanabhan under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit, according to the Plaintiffs, was instituted in a representative capacity for the devotees. It was contended that the wealth which was contributed by the Rulers was kept safely inside the four vaults of the Nalambalam which were described as the Plaint B Schedule property. 26. In the plaint, it was stated that the 2nd Defendant, namely, one Col. Sasidharan R., who was then the Executive Officer of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, had opened the Kallaras under the directions of His Highness Sri Marthanda Varma and taken out huge quantities of gold and diamonds without recording it and had then taken the valuables to unknown destinations. The said incident was alleged to have taken place on 2nd August 2007. It was also alleged that cameras were taken inside the Temple premises and that photographs had been taken inside the sanctum sanctorum. Page 22 of 93 27. The Plaintiffs further contended that the Temple is a treasure house of art and architecture, which is of great historical importance, and thus needed to be preserved. 28. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs sought the following reliefs in the aforementioned suit:- (i) A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, his agents, henchmen or any other person claiming to have any right in the affairs or the Temple from opening the six Kallara (cellars) inside the Nalambalam which is Plaint B schedule herein or take any articles from the cellar in any form, in any manner or for any purpose or act in any manner detrimental to the interest of the Deity or the devotees. (ii) To pass a decree of mandatory injunction removing all articles brought inside the temple that is Plaint A schedule by the 2nd defendant against the customs, practice and traditions at his own expenses or in the alternative permit the plaintiffs to remove the same at their own expenses and to recover the same from the defendants and their assets. (iii) To allow costs of the suit to be realized from the defendants and their assets both movable and immovable. (iv) To grant such other or such further reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 29. The plaint schedule properties were described in the suit as follows:- PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES PLAINT A SCHEDULE Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple situated inside the Fort Area with eight entrances spread over a sprawling 7.04 acres of land together with numerous buildings, temples and all other things attached thereto of Vanchiyoor Village, Trivandrum Taluk, Trivandrum District. PLAINT B SCHEDULE a. Kallara No.1 on the southern side of the Nalambalam inside the chandanamandapam. b. Kallara No.2 on the South west corner outside the chandanamandapam inside the Nalambalam. c. Kallara No.3 on the north western side inside the Nalambalam. d. Kallara No.4 on the northern side inside the Nalambalam. e. Kallara No.5 inside the Sreekovil on the northern side next to the idol of Vishwaksenar. Page 23 of 93 f. Kallara No.6 inside the Sreekovil on the south eastern corner towards the exit gate to Thekkedom Narasimhamoorthy Temple. 30. On 18th December 2007, certain interlocutory applications which were filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Defendants came up for hearing before the Trial Court. I.A. No.4704/2007 was filed by the two Plaintiffs seeking an interim prohibitory injunction. I.A. No.5510/2007 was filed by the Plaintiffs to implead the State of Kerala as the third Defendant in the suit and I.A. No.5195/2007 was filed by Defendants 1 and 2 seeking to question the very maintainability of the suit. While deciding these applications, the Trial Court acknowledged the history of the Temple in the following words:- It is in the heart of the city of Trivandrum and the name of the city is derived from the holy serpent Ananda and the city is known as the Puram of Ananda. There cannot be a history of Trivandrum and the history of Kerala without mentioning the history of this great Temple. 31. As far as the issue of maintainability was concerned, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no Ruler of erstwhile Travancore since the demise of His Highness Sri Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma and thus the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The Trial Court also concluded that the State of Kerala ought to be impleaded as the third Defendant. 32. On the important issue of grant of prohibitory injunction, the Court noted that it would act as parens patriae and that: ..during the interregnum defendants 1 and 2 should not be allowed to misappropriate the Temple treasures inside the Temple which attracted even Tipu Sultan once upon a time. All the six Kallaras require great protection and safeguard. At present, murajapam is going on inside the Temple and for that purpose two Advocate Commissioners are appointed as per the request of defendants 1 and 2 in I.A. No.6056/2007. Murajapam will conclude on 14th January 2008 as per the schedule. The Advocate Commissioners, are devotees of the Temple. If it is necessary to open any of the Kallaras in the meanwhile, it can be done under the Page 24 of 93 supervision of this Court and with the help of the Commissioners Shri B.R. Shyam and Shri V. Suresh Kumar. Defendants shall not suffer any irreparable injury on account of the order of interim prohibitory injunction. Interim prohibitory injunction shall continue until the matter is finally heard along with the submissions of the State of Kerala.. 33. Interestingly, even though notice had been issued by this Honble Court, along with the grant of interim directions on 2nd May 2011 (and on subsequent dates), the parties continued to move applications before the Trial Court. Thus, for example, on account of the subsistence of the order passed by the Trial Court, the Executive Officer moved an application to take out vessels from the Temple vaults at the instance of the Advocate Commissioners for the conduct of the rectification ceremony (Pariharakriya) held between 5th February 2012 and 16th February 2012. The Trial Court recorded that the Commissioners had been appointed on 22nd December 2001 and were permitted to take out the vessels for the conduct of regular festivals, religious practices and rituals of the Temple. However, the Trial Courts order also observes that an interim report had been filed by the Advocate Commissioners on 15th January 2012 stating that the vessels which were taken out and handed over to the Executive Officer had not been returned until the time of filing of the report. A second report was then filed by the Advocate Commissioners stating that they had given a notice to the Executive Officer to return the vessels mentioned earlier. It was further reported that on 4th February 2012, the Advocate Commissioners were present to receive back the vessels, but the vessels were not returned and neither the Executive Officer nor his representative was present. The person representing the staff of the Temple allegedly stated to the Advocate Commissioners that the vessels would not be returned until the conclusion of the Pariharakriya. The Trial Court therefore noted that Page 25 of 93 the Executive Officer had postponed the return of the vessels and had kept them for the purpose of the Pariharakriya even though such use had not been authorized by the Court. The Trial Court therefore observed in its order dated 9th February 2012 that:- The Commissioners have stated in the open Court that one vessel would weigh 600 gms which shows the value of the article. There are around 200 vessels taken which are now in the custody of the Executive Officer and its value cannot be imagined. Such articles are kept at the hands of the Executive Officer without the authority of the Court. This Court cannot appreciate such conduct. That apart, the Supreme Court in its order dated 2nd May 2011, made certain interim directions. 34. The Trial Court then referred to interim direction (b) in this Honble Courts order dated 2nd May 2011 and reproduced the same as follows:- In regard to the articles in Kallaras C and D used for regular rituals and the ornaments etc. in Kallaras E and F said to be in the custody of Periya Nambi and Thekkadom Nambi, the existing practices, procedures and rituals may be followed in regard to the opening and closing of the Kallaras and using of the articles therein. As far as Kallaras A and B which is reportedly not opened for more than a century, they shall be opened only for the purpose of making inventory of the articles and then closed and sealed again. 35. The Trial Court however said that the vessels which were kept in Kallaras C and D were used for regular poojas and that this Honble Court had granted permission to take the vessels out four times for the conduct of regular rituals and religious practices. However, it was observed that: Now vessels are sought for in this petition for the conduct of rectification ceremony or pariharakriya which is not a regular religious practice or regular ritual of the temple..[Emphasis supplied] 36. The Trial Court therefore concluded that:- ..Now since the matter has been seized by the Honourable Supreme Court the Executive Officer apparently has to obtain the permission of the Honourable Supreme Court in regard to the permission regarding the conduct of Pariharakriya. It is not obtained. It is not obtained from this court also. Thus it is held that the vessels cannot be taken out for the following two reasons:- Page 26 of 93 (i) As the vessels are not returned as per the order 22.12.2011 of this court, this court cannot grant permission. (ii) Since Pariharakriya is not a regular ritual or religious practice of the temple, this court cannot grant permission for taking out the vessels for the said purpose for which permission has to be obtained from Honourable Supreme Court or this court It is also directed that the Executive Officer shall return back the vessels taken out as per order dated 22.12.2011 forthwith to the Commissioners and the Commissioners shall take back the vessels after checking same and keep it in the earmarked vaults. The Commissioners shall file report regarding the same and the Executive Officer shall also file an affidavit on 13.2.2012 after complying with the direction of this court.. 37. As a result, the Trial Court dismissed the application which had been filed by the Executive Officer to take out the vessels for the purpose of Pariharakriya. 38. It may be noted that in O.S. No.625/2007, the State has filed a written statement on the basis that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Travancore acts as Trustee and the properties and funds of the Temple are managed by the Ruler. The State has also said that the Executive Officer is appointed under the control and supervision of the Ruler of erstwhile Travancore. The State has further submitted that: .in the case of Shree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, there seems no valid reason for Government to interfere in the administration of the Temple. The administration of the Temple has not broken down nor is there any other allegation of a major nature which forces Government to interfere in the administrative affairs of the Temple... This Honble Court finally stayed the proceedings in O.S. No.625/2007 vide order dated 15th February 2012. 39. As far as the Special Leave Petitions are concerned, on 23rd February 2012, this Honble Court was pleased to pass the following directions:- On hearing Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and Ms. Liz Mathew, learned counsel for the State of Kerala, we pass the following order in continuation of the earlier orders/directions:- Page 27 of 93 1) The removal of articles necessary for the conduct of pujas, rituals and other ceremonies from Kalaras C and D shall be done with the help of two Advocate Commissioners, S/Sh B.R. Shyam and V. Suresh Kumar under the supervision of the Expert Committee. The Advocate Commissioners shall fully co-operate with the Expert Committee and abide by the directions that may be given by the Expert Committee from time to time. 2) In case, the Expert Committee finds that the Advocate Commissioners are not co-operating with it or not following with its directions, it will be open to the Expert Committee to replace the Advocate Commissioners by two respectable devotees. 3) For the purpose of inventorisation of Kallaras C and D, it is clarified that the help of the Advocate Commissioners is not required and the Expert Committee shall be free to open the Kallara C and D for the purpose of inventorisation as and when necessary. 4) The Expert Committee shall submit the estimate for construction of the security wall on the norms of the Reserve Bank of India as well as the estimate involved in seeking advice from the international agency for which permission has been sought from this Court. These estimates shall be submitted within four weeks from today. 5) The State of Kerala is directed to release the fund as per the revised budget for the proper functioning of the Expert Committee immediately and in no case later than two weeks from today. List the matter on March 29, 2012 at 3.30 p.m. for further directions. 40. In the meanwhile, the Expert Committee submitted its Interim Report IV on 26th March 2012. The Interim Report recorded that:- (i) 859 artefacts from Kallaras C, E and F had been inventorised; (ii) Inventorisation of upto 90% of the artefacts in Kallara C had been completed; (iii) More than 60% of the inventorisation work with respect to Kallaras E and F had been completed; (iv) Inventory work was stopped from 24th March to 15th April 2012 in view of the Paikuni festival; Page 28 of 93 (v) On the question of constructing a security vault, the Expert Committee set out various points which had been brought to notice in the representation given by the Temple Administration. One of the points which was made was that any new vault must be constructed according to the vastu tradition. In this respect, the Expert Committee had approached Sri Kannippayyoor Krishnan Nambuthirippadu, a renowned vastu expert and Dean of the Vastuvidya Gurukulam (an autonomous institution of the Government of Kerala), who had given a report suggesting the strengthening of the existing Kallaras and stating that if a new one had to be constructed, it should be built in the space between Kallara B and Kallara C. As a result, the Expert Committee was of the opinion that construction of a new vault should be deferred till Kallara B is opened and priority should be given to strengthening Kallara C which, at present, houses the artefacts for occasional use by the Temple. The report also noted that a suitable architect competent to undertake the work of strengthening the vaults had been identified by the State Bank of Travancore. 41. The Expert Committees Interim Report IV also noted that it was forming three Expert Groups:- (i) Expert Group I to study the historical aspects of the Temple; (ii) Expert Group II to carry out technical studies; (iii) Expert Group III to study the utilization of valuables and the construction of a museum. 42. The Expert Committee thereafter sought orders on the following questions: whether it could open Kallara B; whether it could defer the Page 29 of 93 construction of a new vault till such opening; and whether the articles could be stored in the existing Kallaras without compromising the security and preservation? The Expert Committee also sought a direction for the strengthening of Kallara C which would cost approximately Rs.37 lakhs. 43. On 18th April 2012, this Honble Court passed the following order:- By Interim Report-IV dated March 26, 2012, the Expert Committee has sought the following directions:- (i) whether the Committee can open Kallara B; (ii) whether the Committee can defer the construction of a new vault till Kallara B is opened and to decide whether the articles can be stored in the existing kallaras, without compromising on security and preservation and (iii) direction on expenditure for strengthening Kallara C, costing approximately Rs. thirty seven lakhs. 2. In the order dated July 21, 2011 inter alia, this Court directed the Expert Committee to examine and give the opinion as to whether it is necessary to open Kallara B at this stage. 3. In its Interim Report-IV, the Committee has not given any opinion after examining all aspects of the matter as directed in the order dated July 21, 2011 as to whether it is necessary to open Kallara B at this stage. 4. In our view, the inventorisation of the articles of Kallara A has to be completed first. On completion thereof, the Expert Committee shall examine the matter as per the order dated July 21, 2011 and submit its opinion about opening of kallara B. 5. In its Progress Report-I, the Co-ordinator of the Expert Committee has submitted summary of work so far completed (i) in a sealed cover comprising Article I in electronic format and (ii) Article II in hard copy format. He has also sent the password and report on existing vaults in sealed covers in Article III and Article IV respectively. 6. The Expert Committee shall ensure that summary of work in electronic format and hard copy is kept in a sealed cover and no further copies are prepared. 7. The Court Masters shall put the above Articles I to IV and also copies prepared for the second set in a sealed cover and hand over the same to Registrar (J-III) for keeping in his lock and key. 8. In the Progress Report-I, the Co-ordinator has indicated that the inventorisation of kallara A will take place after April 23, 2012. He has also stated that it is not practical to keep the valuables from Kallara A back into the same space without compromising the conservation and safety standards. Page 30 of 93 9. In our opinion, the Expert Committee has to ensure that after inventorisation, all the articles/valuables from kallara A are kept back in the same space and with the help of the experts it must be ensured that there is no compromise to the conservation and safety standards of these articles/valuables. 10. As regards the strengthening of kallara C, in the Interim Report-IV, it is stated that it would cost approximately Rs.35/37 lakhs. In our view, Kallara C needs to be strengthened and 2/3rd of its cost must be borne by the State of Kerala and 1/3rd by the Temple Management. 11. The State of Kerala and the Temple Management are directed to contribute their share towards expenditure for strengthening of kallara C to the Expert Committee within one month from today. 12. List the matter on August 8, 2012 at 3.30 p.m. for further directions. 44. Then, on 8th August 2012, this Honble Court was pleased to pass the following order:- I.A. No. 14 of 2012 in S.L.P. (C) No. 11295 of 2011: Respondent No. 1 T.P. Sundara Rajan is reported to have died on July 17, 2011. The Writ Petition which was filed before the Kerala High Court was in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, it is not necessary to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 T.P. Sundara Rajan. The name of deceased respondent No.1 T.P. Sundara Rajan is struck off from the array of parties. Amended cause-title shall be filed within two weeks from today. S.L.P. (C) No. 11295 of 2011: Let the copy of the Interim Report No. V submitted by the Expert Committee be supplied to the parties concerned. Writ Petition (C) No. 518 of 2011: Although, we do not intend to issue notice in this Writ Petition at this stage but the petitioner, if so advised, may supply copy of the Writ Petition to all the parties in the Special Leave Petition. List this group of matters on August 23, 2012 at 3.30 p.m. 45. In the meanwhile, the Expert Committee submitted Interim Report V. The said report, dated 6th August 2012, states as follows:- (i) All the 1469 groups of objects kept in Kallara C and 617 objects kept in Kallara D have been completely documented. Page 31 of 93 (ii) Inventorisation of 41 items in Kallaras E & F has been completed. The remaining objects are of daily use for rituals and the Nambis (temple priests) were not prepare[d] [to] spare any of them for inventorisation. This is reported to the Honble Supreme Court (iii) The inventorisation of Kallara A started on 5.7.2012 and the work is in full swing. A total of 631 objects out of Kallara A have been documented so far. 46. The Expert Committee also noted that it had earlier recommended the strengthening of vault C so that the valuables in Kallara A could be transferred to Kallara C after inventorisation. However, the Interim Report stated as follows: According to their scientific investigation, Vault A, holding most of the valuable items is the safest of all opened vaults in the Temple and priority has to be given for strengthening it. The Joint meeting of the Expert and Overseeing committees convened on 12.7.2012 decided to accept the recommendation of the Expert group and decided, subject to the approval of the Hon. Supreme Court, to strengthen Kallara 'A' giving priority. The Committee also accepted the decision of the expert group to select Godrej as the implementing agency considering the competency and reputation of the firm in this field and also taking into account the intricate problems involved in strengthening without affecting heritage structure of the vault. It was also decided to invite the topmost specialist from Godrej for an on the spot study of the problem in the presence of the Expert Group. M/s. Godrej responded promptly by sending the topmost person from their Design Wing who inspected the vaults on 23.7.2012 in the presence of Chief Engineer PWD and Shri. T. Saboo of ISRO and submitted a provisional proposal which has been examined by Shri Vikas Verma, nominated member of RBI to the Expert Committee who has consolidated facts and submitted the report. The report is appended as ANNEXURE-l The scientific strength of the vaults A & C by ISRO and the report is enclosed as ANNEXURE-1(A) Hon. Supreme Court may grant approval to the proposal of the Expert Group to strengthen the vault A in the place of Vault C and also, to engage M/s Godrej &Boyce Ltd., for this purpose. Also, permission may be given to the Committee to shift the valuables in Vault A, kept locked and sealed in different steel boxes, to Vault C when the strengthening work starts in Vault A and store them in Vault C till the completion of the work of strengthening, without any compromise on security of the articles. Page 32 of 93 47. On the issue of storage of data from inventorisation and retrieval of the same, the Expert Committee decided to store the inventory data with ISRO in the interests of secrecy and as per disaster management norms. On 14th June 2012, it was also decided that a vault in the State Bank of India / State Bank of Travancore should be hired to store the hard copies of the backup of the data and to authorize Sri Adithya Varma, nominee of His Highness Sri Marthanda Varma, and Sri C. Karthikeyan Nair, the present Administrative Officer of the Expert Committee, to jointly operate the same. 48. It must be noted that earlier, on 9th April 2012, the Expert Committee had decided that the aforesaid data must be stored in three different locations, one at ISRO and the remaining in locations to be identified. It appears, however, that His Highness Sri Marthanda Varma was of the opinion that this may tantamount to carrying the data outside the Temple premises which may not be in conformity with the directions issued by this Honble Court and Sri Marthanda Varma was therefore of the opinion that the same needed an express permission from this Honble Court. In view of this concern, as a temporary measure, a Godrej storewell was purchased and kept in the server room to store the hard discs with the backup of the data contained in the server/computers. Undoubtedly, such a backup of the data is necessary. 49. The Expert Committees Report further points out that there are fair chances of losing the electronic data from the server on account of disasters. Therefore, the Expert Committee states that it should be allowed to store the data in soft copy and hard copy format in an environment which will survive all forms of disasters, as well as the adverse effects of climatic variation. Page 33 of 93 50. The Expert Committee has also pointed out that the Government of Kerala has given directions preventing the Committee from utilizing the services of Sri V.K. Harikumar, Executive Officer, and 8 others in the inventorisation process on the ground of adverse reports on their antecedents. As a result, it appears that the Expert Committee has not been able to issue security passes (for entry to the work area) to these persons for want of necessary certification from the Home Department, Government of Kerala. The Expert Committee, however, records that:- .the committee is forced to use the services of some of these persons including Shri Harikumar, who, being the Executive Officer of the Temple, is a Member of the Expert Committee besides being the custodian of one set of the keys of the vaults. 51. It is further recorded as follows:- Though the committee does not have any complaints against Shri Harikumar and others mentioned in the report of the Home Ministry it considers it as a security lapse allowing persons to enter the workspace without valid (sic) passes.. 52. Although the Expert Committee records that His Highness Sri Marthanda Varma did not respond to requests for making an alternate arrangement in place of the present Executive Officer, the Amicus Curiae, in consultation with His Highness Sri Marthanda Varma and Justice M. N. Krishnan, has proposed certain alternative arrangements (set out later in this Report) to deal with various issues. However, if this Honble Court is satisfied with the material at hand that the antecedents of any of the said individuals is less than perfect, it may be safer to appoint new persons instead, without making any comment on the credentials and integrity of those being replaced. Page 34 of 93 53. Moreover, the Expert Committee has also pointed out that a report was published in a Malayalam Daily called Mangalam, on 28th May 2012, containing allegations that: Mr. Harikumar, Executive Officer of the temple and a member of the Expert committee by virtue of his position reported to the royal family a deliberate attempt by some members of the Committee to leak out the data. It may be noted that the said report has also been followed by various writings on the internet that seek to defame the Expert Committee. It may be said in fairness to Sri Harikumar, that he has denied any such interaction. 54. In Part VI of Interim Report V, the Expert Committee has noted that: While examining the articles for the purpose of inventorisation, tags attached to the articles, revealing the identification numbers given to the items during earlier stock taking (For instance, in M.E 1104 corresponding to Year 1930-31) have been found. 55. The Expert Committee therefore notes that the registers/records prepared on those occasions would be of use in the present inventorisation process as they would help in authentication as well as speeding up the work. 56. It is however submitted that the Expert Committee has sought directions from this Honble Court that the records and registers of earlier stock taking be provided even though there does not appear to have been any request by the Committee to the Temple Administration for the same, nor does there appear to be any refusal on the part of the Temple Administration to part with such records of earlier inventories. 57. The Interim Report also lays out the following recommendations for enhancing the security: Page 35 of 93 (i) All the pending security issues, such as procurement of multizone DFMDs, explosive detectors, x-ray baggage scanners, fire fighting equipment, etc. may be done on priority. Progress on this aspect is not satisfactory. (ii) The training of Temple security staff on usage of portable fire extinguishers and management of disasters like stampedes and bomb explosions should be carried out on priority basis by trained police staff. (iii) The backup data of CCTV systems and inventory data of the Temple valuables are at present being kept on site, which is against the principles of disaster management. They should be secured at offsite locations immediately. (iv) Proper fire-fighting arrangements may be made for the room housing the server which stores data relating to the inventory of the Temple valuables. (v) Installation of bollards may be done on priority as they are required for imposing effective restrictions on vehicular movements near and around the Temple premises. (vi) All unauthorized shops, political party offices and eateries in the proximity of the Temple premises may be removed by appropriate authorities on priority. (vii) Electricity poles located close to the perimeter wall may either be relocated to a safe distance or should be covered by barbed wire for eliminating the possibility of intrusion. (viii) Drainage channel openings may be blocked/fortified by installing steel grills at the openings. Page 36 of 93 58. In Part VIII of the Interim Report, the Expert Committee has stated that it commenced the inventory work on 20th February 2012 and that it has completed inventorisation of all objects in vaults C and D, as well as that of the permitted objects in vaults E and F. However, the inventorisation of items in vault A is taking a longer time on account of the work involved in analyzing the quality of the gems, their purity, and their physical properties such as colour and transparency. The Interim Report then goes on to state that the Expert Committee is using internationally accepted techniques and that inventorisation is being carried out using software of International Council of Museums (ICOM) standards. The Expert Committee hopes to complete the entire inventorisation work by 20th August 2013. 59. In light of the above, the Expert Committee has sought directions from this Honble Court on the following points:- (i) Whether strengthening of vault A can be given preference to strengthening of vault C? (ii) If so, whether the Expert Committee can engage M/s Godrej on terms negotiated by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Kerala? (iii) Whether the revised cost for the aforesaid strengthening work can be shared between Government of Kerala and the Temple in the ratio of 2:1 as fixed by this Honble Court? (iv) Whether the valuables kept in sealed boxes can be temporarily shifted to vault C while executing the work, considering the security and safety of the valuables? Page 37 of 93 (v) In view of the inadequacy of secrecy of the data stored in servers located inside the Temple, and also considering the principles of disaster management, whether the Expert Committee can store the data with ISRO without compromising confidentiality and security? (vi) Considering the difficulties and uncertainty in preservation of data in electronic form, whether the Expert Committee can preserve the data as a hard copy in suitable fireproof lockers outside the Temple while ensuring confidentiality and security? (vii) Whether Sri Harikumar (the present Executive Officer) and the 8 others mentioned earlier can continue to be associated with the inventorisation process despite the directions of the Home Ministry, Government of Kerala? (viii) Whether this Honble Court can reiterate its stand to the media against publishing misleading information? (ix) Whether this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the Temple/Palace to provide the Expert Committee with records and registers of earlier stock taking? (x) Whether this Honble Court may give suitable direction to the Temple/Government to implement the security recommendations within a period of 3 months? (xi) Whether the time for completing the inventorisation process can be extended up to August 2013? 60. Thereafter, by an order dated 23rd August 2012, this Honble Court appointed an Amicus Curiae in the matter. The order states as follows:- S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11295/2011: Page 38 of 93 Having regard to the controversy involved in the matter and the reports being submitted by the Expert Committee on Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple from time to time, we are of the opinion that an amicus needs to be appointed to assist the Court. In the course of discussion, the name of Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Senior Counsel, cropped up. All the parties are agreeable that Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Senior Counsel, may be appointed as amicus curiae. We, accordingly, request Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel, to act as amicus curiae in the matter. Let a copy of the special leave petition alongwith affidavits and documents, interim reports submitted by the Expert Committee from time to time and the proceedings and order sheets in the matter be given to Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel, amicus curiae, by the Registry within two weeks. List the matter on September 19, 2012 at 3 p.m. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12361/2011; S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 17081-17082/2011 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 518/2011: List these matters along with S.L.P. (Civil) No.11295/2011. 61. The Amicus Curiae mentioned the matter before this Honble Court in order to enable him and the junior counsel assisting him to visit Thiruvananthapuram for an on-the-spot assessment of the activities at the Temple, including the activities outlined in the reports of the Expert Committee. Thus, on 17th September 2012, this Honble Court recorded as follows:- At the request of Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Amicus Curiae and not objected to by M/s. B.V. Deepak, Vipin Nair and Liz Mathew, learned counsel for the parties, list this group of matters on October 9, 2012 at 3 P.M. 62. Before proceeding to the next part of this report, it would not be out of place to mention that the Executive Officer had filed an affidavit dated 23rd August 2012 asserting that the control and supervision of the gold, ornaments, jewels and all other items kept in Kallaras A to F are, as per the statute, with his office and that he is the custodian of the keys to Page 39 of 93 the locks of the Kallaras within the Temple and also of the boxes containing invaluable articles and artefacts inside these Kallaras. 63. The Executive Officer further states that he is the only member of the Expert Committee resident in Thiruvananthapuram and present in the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple on a daily basis to discharge his duties. According to him, out of the remaining three members of the Expert Committee, one is a representative of the Archaeological Survey of India and is a resident of Trichur and the other two members are residents of Delhi and Jaipur. He further states that the first member mentioned earlier was present only for 3-4 days during the inventorisation process between February 2012 and August 2012, while the other two members were present only for 25-30 days. The Executive Officer claims that only he could monitor the implementation of the orders of this Honble Court for preparing the inventory of the items found in the Kallaras. 64. In the said affidavit, the Executive Officer complains that the Coordinator of the Expert Committee wrote to the Home Department (Government of Kerala) for police clearance for him as well as seven of his assistants who were employees of the Temple. The Executive Officer has therefore objected to the adverse report of the Home Department and stated that it was not appropriate for the Coordinator to seek any such clearance with regard to any member of the Expert Committee without the leave of this Honble Court. 65. The Executive Officer has further submitted that the statement contained in Part IV of the Interim Report V of the Expert Committee, that the Committee had approached His Highness Sri Marthanda Varma on the issue of security clearance, but that the Committee did not get any Page 40 of 93 response from him, is not accurate. He further states that the only request which was made by the Administrative Officer of the Expert Committee was as follows:- In this connection, I am directed to request Your Highness to take suitable steps to ensure smooth conduct of the job of the Expert Committee in the manner envisaged by the Supreme Court. 66. The Executive Officer further states that he has not been permitted to exercise his functions by virtue of the fact that he was not given a pass to enter the work area. He further states, that on most of the days, no member of the Expert Committee is present throughout the day during the inventorisation process. 67. According to the Executive Officer, he has held additional charge as Director of Municipal Administration, Thiruvananthapuram from 2000 and he was substantively appointed to that post in July 2001 until he retired in October 2001. The Executive Officer further asserts that the post of Director, Municipal Administration is an IAS cadre post and his appointment was cleared by the Cabinet and he was appointed with the concurrence of the UPSC and the Central Government. However, the Amicus Curiae has not received any confirmation from the State Government on this issue. 68. In paragraph 12 of his affidavit, the Executive Officer also states that he would deliver the 18 registers in question regarding past inventories to the Expert Committee for its use after preparing photocopies of those registers. It is however stated by the Executive Officer that Justice M.N. Krishnan had prepared an inventory of the contents of vaults A, C, D, E and F and that Justice M. N. Krishnan should therefore be requested to hand over the entire inventory to the Expert Committee. Page 41 of 93 The Amicus Curiae has learnt that Justice M. N. Krishnan has kept the inventory in a bank locker. 69. I.A. No.17 of 2012 in SLP (C) 11295 of 2011 has been filed for the purpose of enabling the Additional Affidavit dated 23rd August 2012 to be taken on record. 70. The Executive Officer has also moved an Interlocutory Application, namely, I.A. No.16 of 2012 in SLP (C) No. 11295 of 2011 praying for the following orders:- (i) that a copy of the inquiry report of the Home Department, Government of Kerala, which has been submitted to this Honble Court in a sealed cover, be supplied to the applicant; (ii) that the present Coordinator of the Overseeing Committee produce the entire record of the inventory of vaults A, C, D, E and F; (iii) that the Petitioner be permitted to take photocopies of the registers adverted to in the Interim Report V prior to their production before the Expert Committee. 71. An interlocutory application was also filed on 1st October 2012 by the third Respondent. The applicant, N. Vishwanbaran, one of the party respondents in Writ Petition (C) No.4256/2010 before the Kerala High Court. The applicant-third respondent was also one of the plaintiffs in the earlier mentioned O.S. No.625/2007 instituted before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. In the said application, the third respondent seeks the removal of Sri V.K. Harikumar as a member of the Expert Committee. The said application refers to his previous conduct in flouting the orders of the Page 42 of 93 Court below, coupled with the fact that the Home Department, Government of Kerala, had serious reservations about his continuation given his previous antecedents. 72. In a Counter Affidavit filed by one R. Chandran Kutty (dated 24th September 2011) it is disclosed that a circular was issued by Sri Marthanda Varma on 2nd August 2007 stating that the cellars of the Temple wherein gold and silver articles were stored would be opened for taking photographs to prepare an album. In the said affidavit, it is also pointed out that there should be a transparent process of identification and valuation of the antique articles, including an inventory. II. HISTORY AND TRADITIONS OF THE SREE PADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE 1. Before providing his recommendations and suggestions, the Amicus Curiae believes that a brief narration of the history of the Temple is necessary to appreciate the recommendations and suggestions. 2. Stella Kramrisch in her famous book The Hindu Temple has beautifully described a temple as follows: It is a place for the meeting and marriage of Heaven and Earth where the whole world is present in terms of measure, and is accessible to man The Temple is a concrete shape (Murti) of the essence; as such it is the residence and vesture of God. The masonry is the sheath (kosha) and body. The Temple is the monument of manifestation. The devotee who comes to the Temple, to look at it, does so as a seer, not as a spectator. 3. In Hindu philosophy, Advaita Vedanta declares ekameva dwitiya brahman which means that only one Supreme Divinity exists. However, there is Page 43 of 93 also a process for being able to realize the ultimate Upanishadic Truth. Saguna Upasana is considered an essential pathway to establish communion with the Divine. The sages in India have been adept in teaching devotees both Saguna Upasana, i.e., where God is an object of worship and the devotee enters into a lifelong relationship with his ishta devata which leads to Nirguna Samadhi. 4. Hindu philosophy is embodied in (a) the Vedas; (b) the Upanishads, i.e., the interpretation of the Vedas; (c) the Puranas (d) the Bhagavath Gita; and (e) the Tantras which are contained in different Puranas. The rituals and prayogas are contained in the Smritis. It is important to note that Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple is mentioned in six Puranas. In the Varaha Purana, the following shloka finds a place:- 17 [ c 1 1 || (Meaning: I reside in the land which lies south of the Malaya mountain and north of the ocean, which is famed by the name Syanandoora.) 5. A later shloka in the aforesaid scripture says: + 17 1 T [ (There has been a belief about the existence of a golden lotus in the Padma Teertham, passed on through oral tradition.) 6. Similarly, the Brahma Purana also refers to the sanctity of Anantasayana Puram. In the Brahma Purana, Lord Vishnu is referred to as Page 44 of 93 Syanandoora Purusha and His domain as Syanandoorapura. There is a legend of the Temple connecting Sree Padmanabha Swamy with a sage called Divakara:- 1 . : 7. In the Temple, Sree Maha Vishnu lies on a coiled serpent in a reclining pose, in a state of yoga nidra, and his right hand is stretched downwards for worshipping Lord Shiva. While from his nabhi (navel), a lotus stem sprouts upwards and in the lotus, Lord Brahma, the Creator, is situated. The meaning of such an idol and its significance will be explained later. 8. It may also be noted that Anantasayanam is described in the various parts