Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court quashed the FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 against the petitioners, including the Melsanthi (chief priest) and trustees of Sree Ayyappan Kavu Temple, Cherpulassery, holding that they do not qualify as “public servants” under Section 2(c) of the PC Act due to the absence of government or public funding to the temple. However, the Court allowed the investigation under the Indian Penal Code for allegations of misappropriation and falsification of records to continue by transferring the FIR to the local police station for further investigation under Sections 406, 408, 420, 468, 471, and 120B IPC.
Facts
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palakkad, registered an FIR alleging that the trustees, Melsanthi, and a clerk of Sree Ayyappan Kavu Temple committed offences under the PC Act and IPC, including misappropriation of temple funds, retaining deity ornaments, and falsifying records during construction activities. The temple operates under the Malabar Devaswom Board governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and does not receive government or public authority funding. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, arguing that the PC Act did not apply to them.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners, being trustees, Melsanthi, and Devaswom employees, qualify as “public servants” under Section 2(c) of the PC Act, 2018.
- Whether the FIR under the PC Act could be sustained in the absence of financial assistance to the temple from the government or public authority.
- Whether the investigation for IPC offences could continue independently after quashing PC Act offences.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that:
- They are not “public servants” under Section 2(c) of the PC Act as the temple does not receive government or public authority funding.
- Section 45 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 provides the Commissioner with sufficient authority to address any alleged misappropriation or maladministration.
- The allegations pertained to temple administration and did not involve public funds or public duties under the PC Act.
- The Melsanthi’s alleged retention of ornaments was resolved when the items were returned to the temple, negating any offence.
Respondent’s Arguments
The de facto complainant argued:
- The trustees and functionaries perform public duties in which the community has an interest, making them public servants under Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act.
- Cited Satheesh v. Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (2003 KHC 1143) and State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (2020) to assert a broad interpretation of “public servant” for those managing religious institutions.
- The Melsanthi’s temporary retention of deity ornaments indicated misappropriation, justifying investigation.
The Public Prosecutor supported these arguments and urged continuation of the investigation under the PC Act and IPC to ensure accountability.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Section 2(c)(xii) of the PC Act, requiring the receipt of financial assistance from the government or public authority to treat employees or office bearers of religious institutions as public servants.
- Section 2(c)(viii) and the definition of “public duty” under Section 2(b) of the PC Act.
- Decisions in Satheesh and Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah emphasising public duty in the context of public funding and administrative control.
Precedent Analysis
- Satheesh v. Enquiry Commissioner (2003): Devaswom administrators as public servants under PC Act due to government appointments under the Guruvayur Devaswom Act.
- State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (2020): Officers of a deemed university treated as public servants due to statutory and public funding context.
- The Court distinguished these cases, holding that without government or public funding, temple functionaries under the Malabar Devaswom Board do not fall under the PC Act’s definition of “public servant.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned:
- The temple and Devaswom Board did not receive government or public authority funding.
- Without government financial assistance, the trustees, Melsanthi, and employees of the temple do not qualify as public servants under Section 2(c)(xii) of the PC Act.
- Allegations of retaining ornaments by the Melsanthi were resolved with their return, and there was no case for prosecution under the PC Act.
- The IPC offences could continue to be investigated by the local police to ensure accountability for alleged misappropriation and falsification of records.
Conclusion
The Court:
- Quashed the FIR under the PC Act, 2018, against all petitioners.
- Allowed the investigation for IPC offences to continue by transferring the FIR to the local police station for further proceedings under the IPC.
- Allowed the petition of the Melsanthi entirely and partially allowed the petitions of other trustees and employees, clarifying that the PC Act was inapplicable in the absence of government funding.
Implications
- Clarifies that temple trustees and priests are not “public servants” under the PC Act if the temple does not receive government funding.
- Reinforces limits on the PC Act’s applicability to religious institutions.
- Enables IPC-based investigation into temple administration irregularities while protecting religious institution functionaries from wrongful application of anti-corruption laws.
Cases Referred
- Satheesh v. Enquiry Commissioner (2003 KHC 1143): Cited by respondents for broad interpretation of “public servant,” but distinguished due to government appointment context.
- State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (2020): Discussed for the definition of “public servant” but distinguished for its statutory funding and control context.
FAQs
1. Can temple trustees and priests be prosecuted under the PC Act without government funding?
No, if the temple does not receive government or public funding, its trustees and employees are not “public servants” under the PC Act.
2. Will the IPC investigation continue despite quashing of PC Act charges?
Yes, the IPC offences related to misappropriation and record falsification will be investigated by the local police.
3. What is the significance of this ruling for religious institutions?
It protects religious institution functionaries from misuse of anti-corruption laws while ensuring IPC-based accountability.
