Introduction:

The Kerala High Court has clarified that its earlier restrictions on the use of Thekkinkadu Maidan in Thrissur were not intended to prohibit public addresses by eminent personalities, government-sponsored programmes, Independence Day celebrations or School Youth Festivals. The Court has maintained the prohibition against political activities, protests and demonstrations while emphasising that the Cochin Devaswom Board must exercise its discretion carefully, keeping the interests of the deity and devotees in mind.

The ruling is significant because it distinguishes political activities prohibited under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, from legitimate public, cultural and government events that may be conducted at the historic venue.

Introduction:

The clarification came in a review petition arising out of proceedings concerning the use and management of Thekkinkadu Maidan, a historically significant public space situated in the heart of Thrissur and closely associated with the famous Thrissur Pooram festival. The dispute concerned the extent to which the Maidan, which is associated with the temple and managed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, could be used for public gatherings, political programmes and other events without compromising its religious character.

Earlier, in July 2026, the Kerala High Court had issued directions restricting the use of Thekkinkadu Maidan for political activities and gatherings. The directions were intended to ensure that places associated with religious worship maintained an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity and were not used for activities prohibited under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.

The petitioner had initially approached the High Court seeking a declaration that prior permission from the Court was not necessary for letting out the Kshethra Maidan, except in matters involving beautification and construction activities. The proceedings subsequently resulted in directions governing the manner in which the Maidan could be utilised.

Aggrieved by certain observations and restrictions contained in the earlier judgment, the petitioner sought a review. The review petition raised concerns that the restrictions could adversely affect the historical, cultural and public significance of Thekkinkadu Maidan. It was argued that the venue had traditionally hosted public addresses by eminent personalities, including Prime Ministers, and had served as an important location for government programmes and public celebrations.

The review petitioner also questioned the applicability of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, contending that Thekkinkadu Maidan could not automatically be treated as a place of public religious worship merely because of its association with the temple. The petitioner further sought clarification concerning restrictions on hoardings, advertisement boards and events organised by different departments of the State Government.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar considered the review petition and examined the scope of the earlier directions in the light of the statutory provisions and the grounds raised by the petitioner.

Before addressing the substantive objections, the Court reiterated the limited nature of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, and Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224, to explain that review cannot be treated as an opportunity to reopen a matter merely because a party disagrees with the conclusion reached by the Court.

The High Court ultimately clarified that its earlier judgment did not prohibit public addresses by eminent dignitaries, programmes organised by government departments, Independence Day celebrations or School Youth Festivals. At the same time, it maintained the need to prevent political activities, protests and demonstrations at places of religious worship in accordance with the 1988 Act.

Arguments of the Parties:

The review petitioner challenged the earlier judgment on several grounds, primarily questioning the applicability of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, to Thekkinkadu Maidan.

The principal contention was that the Maidan could not be regarded as a place of public religious worship merely because of its association with the temple. According to the petitioner, the venue had an independent historical and public identity and had traditionally been used for several activities extending beyond religious ceremonies.

The petitioner pointed out that locations within the Maidan, including Students’ Corner, Nehru Mandapam, Labour Corner and Vivekananda Square, had considerable historical significance. These places had witnessed public gatherings and addresses by several eminent personalities, including Prime Ministers who visited Thrissur.

It was argued that the earlier judgment, by imposing restrictions on political activities and gatherings, had created uncertainty concerning the continued use of these historically important locations for public addresses and other legitimate programmes.

The petitioner further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the Court while issuing the earlier directions were distinguishable. According to the review petitioner, those decisions primarily concerned activities conducted within temple premises and could not automatically be applied to Thekkinkadu Maidan, which also functions as the venue for the historic Thrissur Pooram.

The petitioner emphasised that the Maidan had long served as a venue for public and cultural activities. Therefore, its use could not be restricted by treating every gathering or public programme as an activity falling within the prohibition contemplated under the 1988 Act.

Another important objection concerned the interpretation of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. The petitioner contended that the statutory definition of a religious institution should not be extended to cover Thekkinkadu Maidan merely because the venue was associated with a temple.

The petitioner also questioned the restrictions concerning the installation of hoardings and advertisement boards. It was submitted that the directions contained in the earlier judgment could affect the arrangements ordinarily made during public events, festivals and other programmes conducted at or around the Maidan.

The petitioner further raised concerns regarding the observations in the earlier judgment relating to programmes organised by various departments of the State Government.

It was argued that the restrictions should not be interpreted as preventing government departments from conducting legitimate public functions at the Maidan. The petitioner specifically referred to events such as Independence Day celebrations and School Youth Festivals, which are organised for public participation and have no necessary connection with political campaigning.

The petitioner also questioned the financial arrangements governing the use of the Maidan. It was contended that permitting events connected with the Devaswom Department without payment of licence fees or rent, while imposing financial conditions in other circumstances, could result in an arbitrary distinction.

On this basis, the review petitioner sought reconsideration and clarification of the earlier directions to ensure that the restrictions did not interfere with the legitimate public and historical uses of the venue.

The respondents, including the authorities connected with the management of the Maidan and the relevant public administration, were represented before the Court. However, the available case summary does not provide a detailed account of their individual submissions. The controversy, therefore, principally required the Court to examine the statutory applicability of the 1988 Act, the scope of its earlier directions and the extent to which the review jurisdiction could be exercised.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court disposed of the review petition by issuing important clarifications concerning the scope of its earlier judgment. While refusing to accept the petitioner’s principal contention that the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, was inapplicable to Thekkinkadu Maidan, the Court made it clear that the earlier restrictions were not intended to prohibit legitimate government programmes, public addresses by eminent dignitaries or important public celebrations.

Limited Scope of Review Under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC

Before examining the individual grounds raised in the review petition, the Division Bench reiterated the settled principles governing the exercise of review jurisdiction.

Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permits a court to review its judgment or order on limited grounds, including the discovery of new and important evidence that could not have been produced despite the exercise of due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason recognised by law.

The Court emphasised that review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. A party cannot seek reconsideration simply because it believes that the Court should have adopted a different interpretation or reached another conclusion.

Referring to Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, the Bench reiterated that an error apparent on the face of the record must be evident and should not require an elaborate process of reasoning to establish its existence. A debatable legal position or an alternative interpretation of the facts does not automatically constitute an error warranting review.

The Court also relied upon Lily Thomas v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court explained that review jurisdiction is not intended to provide a second opportunity for rehearing a matter. Its purpose is to correct an apparent error or address other legally recognised grounds that justify reconsideration.

Applying these principles, the High Court examined whether the objections raised by the petitioner demonstrated a legally sustainable basis for reviewing the earlier judgment.

Applicability of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988

A significant issue before the Court concerned the applicability of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, to Thekkinkadu Maidan.

The petitioner had argued that the Maidan could not be treated as a religious institution merely because of its association with the temple. The Court, however, was unable to accept this interpretation.

For this purpose, the Bench examined Section 3 of the 1988 Act, which prohibits the use of religious institutions for promoting or propagating political activities.

The statutory framework is intended to prevent religious institutions and premises associated with religious worship from being misused for political purposes. It seeks to preserve the religious character of such institutions and prevent their conversion into platforms for political mobilisation.

The Court also considered the definitions contained in Section 2 of the Act.

Section 2(f) defines a religious institution to include a place or premises used as a place of public religious worship, irrespective of the name or designation by which it is known.

Similarly, Section 2(d) defines political activity to include activities intended to promote the objectives of a political party, as well as the organisation of meetings, demonstrations and processions falling within the statutory definition.

On examining these provisions, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s contention concerning the non-applicability of the Act could not be accepted.

The Bench observed that, considering the strict prohibition imposed by Section 3 and the statutory definitions of political activity and religious institution, it was unable to agree that the provisions of the 1988 Act had no application to Thekkinkadu Maidan.

The Court’s reasoning indicates that the applicability of the legislation cannot be determined merely by considering the historical or geographical identity of a particular location. The statutory character of the premises and their association with public religious worship must also be taken into account.

Consequently, the Court maintained its earlier position that political activities prohibited under the 1988 Act could not be permitted at the Maidan.

Historical Importance of Thekkinkadu Maidan and Addresses by Eminent Dignitaries

The Court separately addressed the petitioner’s concern that the earlier judgment could be interpreted as restricting public addresses by eminent personalities.

The petitioner had highlighted the historical significance of Students’ Corner, Nehru Mandapam, Labour Corner and Vivekananda Square. These locations had served as important venues for public interaction and had witnessed addresses by distinguished personalities, including Prime Ministers.

The Bench clarified that the earlier judgment had neither prohibited nor intended to restrict visits by such dignitaries or their delivery of public addresses at Thekkinkadu Maidan.

It specifically observed that the directions issued in the judgment under review could not be interpreted as imposing any such prohibition or restriction.

This clarification is particularly significant because it distinguishes legitimate public addresses and historically important gatherings from political activities prohibited by the 1988 Act.

The Court did not intend to prevent the Maidan from continuing to serve its historical and public functions. Rather, its earlier directions were aimed at ensuring that premises associated with religious worship were not used for activities that would undermine their religious character or violate the statutory restrictions.

The distinction drawn by the Court therefore preserves the possibility of eminent personalities addressing the public at the venue while maintaining the prohibition against political mobilisation, protests and demonstrations falling within the applicable legal framework.

Government Events and Public Celebrations Are Not Prohibited

Another important clarification concerned programmes organised by various departments of the State Government.

The review petitioner had expressed apprehension that the earlier judgment could be understood as preventing government departments from organising events at Thekkinkadu Maidan.

The Court rejected this interpretation and expressly clarified that it had not interdicted programmes or events organised by other departments of the State Government.

It further stated that the earlier judgment did not prohibit Independence Day celebrations, School Youth Festivals or similar public programmes.

The Bench explained that its earlier observations were intended to provide general guidance regarding the manner in which the Cochin Devaswom Board should consider requests for permission to conduct events at the Maidan.

The Board was expected to consider the financial implications of granting permission, including the applicable licence fees or rent, rather than treating every request for the use of the premises in the same manner.

The Court emphasised that the Board retained the discretion to take appropriate decisions in such matters, provided that it exercised that discretion prudently and kept the interests of the deity and devotees in mind.

Thus, the judgment does not establish a blanket prohibition on government-sponsored events. Instead, it recognises that legitimate public programmes can continue, subject to appropriate decisions by the competent authority and compliance with the applicable legal requirements.

Cochin Devaswom Board Must Exercise Its Discretion Prudently

The Court placed particular responsibility upon the Cochin Devaswom Board, which is entrusted with the management of the Maidan.

It reiterated that the Board must exercise its discretion carefully whenever permission is sought for conducting events at the venue.

The Board is required to consider the nature of the proposed event, the interests of the deity and devotees, and the financial implications involved in permitting the use of the premises.

The Court clarified that the earlier judgment had laid down only a general guideline requiring places of religious worship to be maintained in a serene and tranquil atmosphere, free from political activities, protests and demonstrations prohibited under the 1988 Act.

The responsibility for taking decisions concerning individual requests for events would remain with the Board.

This approach ensures that the management of the Maidan is not subjected to an unnecessarily rigid prohibition that would prevent every form of public gathering. At the same time, it preserves the statutory and religious considerations that must guide the Board while deciding applications for permission.

The Court’s observations also indicate that the Board’s discretion is not unlimited. Its decisions must be informed by the purpose for which the premises are maintained and the need to protect the interests of the deity and devotees.

Protocol for Hoardings and Advertisement Boards

The review petition also raised concerns regarding the restrictions imposed on hoardings, advertisement boards and temporary structures around the temple premises.

While addressing this issue, the Court referred to an earlier judgment of a Coordinate Bench, which had relied upon Satheesh v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others, reported in 2022 (1) KLT 940.

The earlier decision had dealt with the installation of hoardings, advertisement boards and temporary structures on the right of way and pedestrian facilities of public roads surrounding temple premises.

It had directed that such structures should not be erected on public roads or pedestrian facilities in connection with annual festivals and religious ceremonies.

Taking note of the legal position and the need for effective regulation, the High Court directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to prepare a detailed protocol governing the installation of hoardings and advertisement boards.

The protocol must take into consideration the interests of the deity and devotees and should ensure that the installation of such structures is properly regulated.

The Court further emphasised that strict compliance with the protocol must be ensured.

This direction is important because the installation of temporary advertisements and display structures during festivals can affect public movement, pedestrian access and the overall management of areas surrounding religious premises.

By requiring a comprehensive protocol, the Court sought to ensure that such activities are governed by clear and consistent standards rather than being left to ad hoc arrangements.

Final Clarification and Disposal of the Review Petition

After considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, the Kerala High Court clarified the scope of its earlier judgment without accepting the contention that the 1988 Act was inapplicable to Thekkinkadu Maidan.

The Court maintained the prohibition against political activities, protests and demonstrations in accordance with the statutory framework. However, it made it clear that public addresses by eminent dignitaries, programmes organised by other State Government departments, Independence Day celebrations and School Youth Festivals were not prohibited by the earlier directions.

It also reiterated that the Cochin Devaswom Board must exercise its discretion prudently while considering requests for the use of the Maidan, keeping in view the interests of the deity and devotees.

Additionally, the Board was directed to formulate a detailed protocol concerning the installation of oardings and advertisement boards and ensure strict compliance with it.

With these cla