1. A few preliminary points on the #SriPadmanabhaswamyTemple judgement - Details of parties and counsels are spelt out in Para 38. The summaries of submissions of pro-Temple counsels are captured in Paragraphs 39-42, and of counsels on the Opposite Side in Paragraphs 43-45. 
2. While several portions of the Judgement are based on submissions by counsels with respect to the history of the case and the applicable statutes, the gist of their submissions has been captured in Paragraphs 39 - 49.
3(a). Paragraph 42 of d Judgement captures d summary of d 3-fold argument made on behalf of the Chief Tantri of the Temple, @People4Dharma and Sri @csranga - that Articles 25(1) & 26 apply to and protect the traditions of the Temple and the rights of the Travancore Royal Family..
3(b) That Article VIII of d Covenant of Merger between the Indian Union and the Travancore-Cochin State acknowledges and protects d traditional relationship between d Travancore Royal Family of d Temple which remains unaffected by the 26th amendment i.e. Privy Purses abolition..
3(c) That Article 363 bars the jurisdiction of Courts in matters relating to treaties, covenants and similar instruments since these fall primarily within the jurisdiction of the President of India who may seek the advise of the Supreme Court.
4. Out of these three broad submissions, in Para 109, the Court has refused to enter into the question of Articles 25 & 26 since they were never raised until 2011 before the High Court by any pro-Temple party. Effectively,d Court didn't want to take a position on the said issue.
5. In multiple paragraphs of d Judgement,d Court has agreed with d submissions made by all Pro-Temple Counsels on why Article VIII of d Covenant remains unaffected by d 26th amendment. This led to recognition of d relationship between the Travancore Family & d Temple as Shebaits.
6. On the question of Article 363 and Jurisdiction of Courts in matters relating to Covenants, the Court has rejected the applicability of the said Article in Paragraph 110.
7. The net legal consequence is that the Shebaitship of the Travancore Royal Family has been accepted without addressing the question of Article 25 & 26, which has been left open without dismissing the said issues. Pls read Para 109, Pgs 204 & 205,of d Judgement in this regard.
8. Coming to the administration of the Temple, the key Paragraph is Paragraph 47 (Pages 98-100 of the Judgement) wherein the suggestions on administration put forth on behalf of the Travancore Royal Family have been captured. The Court has largely accepted their suggestions.
9.According to d suggestions placed before d SC by d Travancore Family,there wil be 2 committees for Temple management-a 3 member Advisory Committee under d Ruler in accordance wid Section 20 of d TCHRI Act 1950,& a 5 member Administrative Comm which will aid d Advisory Comm.
10. Here are the screenshots of the suggestions placed before the Court by the Travancore Royal Family with respect to compositions and roles of the Administrative and Advisory committees, and there interplay. This is from Paragraph 47 on Pages 98-100 of the Judgement.
11. In Paragraphs 110-117 from Pages 205-217, the Court has discussed in detail the proposed administrative structure of the Temple based on the suggestions of the Travancore Royal Family as captured in Paragraph 47. Here are the screenshots of the Paragraphs 116 & 117.
12. As for State interference in d affairs of the Temple, under d suggestions proposed by d Travancore Family and accepted by d Court, there is one representative from d Union Ministry of Culture & one from the State Government of Kerala in the 5 member Administrative Committee.
13. While the Shebaitship of the Travancore Royal Family has been acknowledged and restored,the presence of State officials in any aspect of the administrative structure could and ought to have been avoided. At the very least, their appointment should have been left to the Ruler.
14. Here's d link to d Written submissions filed on behalf of Chief Tantri,@People4Dharma & Sri @csranga where from Pages 65-72 in Paragraphs 44-50,a State-free composition for d Advisory, Oversight & audit Committees was proposed peoplefordharma.org/written-submis…
15. In my view, the outcome, although welcome,is sub-optimal because the Court could have rid the Temple Administration of any form of State Control. To that extent,it remains to be seen if this judgement proves to be useful in the long run to further the cause of Temple Freedom.
16. Given that this judgement was long-awaited and eagerly awaited, while I am happy that there is some forward movement on Temple Freedom, I remain grounded in my views on the Judgement's future utility in other Temple matters. I will cross that bridge when it comes.
17. I will be writing a few pieces over the next few days analysing the judgement and its big picture implications in detail. Until then, please be patient & read whatever has been shared. I have neither d time nor patience for any form of loose talk or gossip or one-upmanship 🙏🏽
18. Lord Padmanabhaswamy has shown the way thus far and will continue to show the way, is my belief. #DharmoRakshatiRakshitah Over and Out.
19. Given the flood of tweets and messages, I think it is important to clarify that an outcome such as the #SriPadmanabhaswamyTemple judgement is not and can never be a solo act. Attribution is an Indic trait, so let me name the fantastic lawyers who worked on this matter.
20. While I argued on behalf of d Chief Tantri of d Temple,@People4Dharma & Sri @csranga who were intervenors,wid Shri @Suvidutt as d Advocate on Record, d current Ruler of the Travancore Family was represented by Senior Advocate Shri Krishnan Venugopal along with Shri Shyamohan.
21. Senior Advocate Shri Arvind P. Datar argued for the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple Trust while Shri M. K. S. Menon argued for other members of the Travancore Family. It was a privilege to argue along side them and truly an educative experience which I have learnt a lot from.
22. Therefore, I would request ppl not to not exaggerate my contribution to the matter. Our contribution stands on its own two feet and does not need the crutch of exaggeration 🙏🏽
