‘No Plan to Defy Courts, but Government Needs Freedom’: Kerala Minister K. Muraleedharan Clarifies Remarks on Judicial Oversight
Kerala Devaswom and Health Minister K. Muraleedharan has clarified that the state government has no intention of confronting or defying the judiciary, but believes it should have greater autonomy in administering temple affairs. His statement came a day after his remarks questioning what he described as extensive judicial intervention in the functioning of temples, particularly the Sabarimala shrine, sparked political and legal debate.
Addressing reporters, Muraleedharan said the government fully respects judicial decisions and would never seek a clash with the courts. At the same time, he argued that the executive should be allowed to discharge its statutory responsibilities independently, with courts stepping in only when government actions violate the law. “The government is not here to clash with the court. But at the same time, the rights of the government must be protected,” he said.
The minister’s clarification followed his earlier comments that judicial supervision over temple administration, especially at Sabarimala, had become so extensive that even operational decisions were effectively being dictated by the Kerala High Court. He had remarked that neither the government nor the Travancore Devaswom Board exercised meaningful control over several aspects of temple administration because many decisions were taken pursuant to court directions.
Muraleedharan also referred to the ongoing investigation into the alleged Sabarimala gold theft case, stating that the government’s role had become limited after the Kerala High Court entrusted the probe to a Special Investigation Team (SIT). According to him, while the investigation remains under judicial supervision, the government is unable to take further administrative steps, a situation he described as highlighting the need for greater executive freedom in matters entrusted to it by law.
Explaining his position, the minister stressed that he was not questioning the judiciary’s constitutional authority. Instead, he argued that the executive should have the primary authority to make administrative decisions, with courts exercising judicial review only when those decisions are illegal or arbitrary. He cited the appointment process for the Travancore Devaswom Board, where certain appointments require approval by the High Court, as an example of what he considered excessive judicial involvement in administrative matters.
The remarks have triggered renewed debate over the constitutional balance between judicial oversight and executive discretion in the administration of religious institutions. While Muraleedharan has sought to dispel suggestions of any confrontation with the judiciary, his comments have revived discussion on the extent of court supervision over temple management in Kerala and the evolving relationship between constitutional courts and statutory Devaswom authorities.
