1. Today Civil Appeal No. 254/211, Revathi Nal P Ramavarma Raja v State of Kerala, was listed before Court No 2 of the Supreme Court with the Bench comprising Justices Shri NV Ramana, Shri Ajay Rastogi and Shri V Ramasubramanian
2. The Civil Appeal arises out of an SLP preferred by the Pandalam Royal Family (the family of Lord Ayyappa) against a judgment of the Kerala High Court delivered in 2006 in relation to ownership and custody of the Thiruvabharanam (Holy Jewels)
3. Mr. @suvidutt was recently engaged by the @PandalaKottaram to take over as its Advocate on Record in the case and the Mentor of our Legal team, Mr. @jsaideepak has been engaged as the Arguing Counsel for the Pandalam Royal Family
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 4. The matter was listed today for the State Government to submit an update to the Court on whether it is indeed ready with a draft legislation to specifically govern the Sabarimala Temple, and on the question of whether the Thiruvabharanam is adequately protected
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 5. Mr. @jsaideepak who appeared today on behalf of @PandalaKottaram submitted that the State cannot assert any right over the jewels and that any interference would violate the traditions and customs of Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple and the rights of the @PandalaKottaram
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 6. Mr. @jsaideepak further submitted that public disclosure of details of the holy jewels will only result in creating a risk for the Royal Family and the Temple the way such disclosures have endangered the Padmanabhaswamy Temple.
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 7. The Bench observed that at this stage it was not deciding the question of ownership and custody of the Holy Jewels one way or the other. It's immediate concern was the safety of the Holy Jewels.
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 8. To this, Mr. @jsaideepak responded that the Court may consider appointing a retired High Court Judge who could prepare a confidential report inventorising the Holy Jewels and submit it only for the Court's consumption
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 9. Mr. @jsaideepak clarified that this suggestion was without prejudice to his contention that the state or the Travancore Devaswom Board did not have any right over the Holy Jewels and that the current status of their custody cannot be altered pending final decision in the case
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 10. Mr. KK Venugopal, Senior Advocate, appeared for the State Government of Kerala and agreed with the suggestion. The Bench requested Shri Venugopal to mediate between the parties to see if there is a possibility of an amicable resolution of the issue
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 11. It was submitted by the standing counsel for the State Government of Kerala that the state would need 4 more weeks to present before the Court a draft legislation exclusively for the Sabarimala Temple
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 12. Accordingly, the Court has directed a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court to prepare a confidential inventory of the Holy Jewels and submit the report to the Court and the State has been granted 4 weeks to present the draft legislation
@suvidutt @PandalaKottaram @jsaideepak 13. Shri Radhakrishnan Nair, Senior Advocate, appeared for a Member of the Royal Family who had filed an impleadment application. The impleadment application has been allowed.
