JUDGMENT : K. V. Jayakumar, J. The above captioned Writ Petition is filed by Sri. N. Prakash, claiming the following reliefs. i. Declare that Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 applies to every religious institution as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, coming within the limits of respondents 1 to 3, notwithstanding the fact that the religious institution is not under the management of a particular Devaswom Board. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the premises of religious institutions coming within their limits are not used for the promotion, endorsement or facilitation of any political party or for political activities. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the religious institutions coming within their limits remain solely dedicated to religious, spiritual and cultural activities, ensuring that the sanctity and traditional character of the religious institutions are preserved. iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the first respondent to proceed under Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 against respondents 4 and 5, as requested for in Exhibit P5, within a time limit to be fixed by this Honourable Court. v. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the sixth respondent to proceed under Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 against those who raised party slogans during the “muhurtham” of marriage function held on 27.4.2025 as is revealed from Exhibit P4, within a time limit to be fixed by this Honourable Court. 2. The petitioner states that the Nayveyppu Maholsavam was celebrated in the Sree Indilayappan Temple, Attingal, from 04.04.2025 to 12.04.2025 and Avanincherry Pooram was celebrated on 09.04.2025. In connection with the said celebrations, the 4 th respondent, Kshethara Vikasana Samithy, has published Ext.P1 notice on their Facebook page having URL https://www.facebook.com/ avanincherypooram#. 3. It is submitted that a drama named ‘ by K. P. A. C. was scheduled on 07.04.2025 at 9.00 pm. A Ghazal Night by singer Aloshi was also scheduled on 11.04.2025. 4. In connection with the said celebrations, the 4 th respondent, Kshethara Vikasana Samithy, has published Ext.P1 notice on their Facebook page having URL https://www.facebook.com/ avanincherypooram#. 3. It is submitted that a drama named ‘ by K. P. A. C. was scheduled on 07.04.2025 at 9.00 pm. A Ghazal Night by singer Aloshi was also scheduled on 11.04.2025. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that in the Ghazal Night by Aloshi, he performed political songs like ‘Nooru Nooru Pookkale’ and ‘Lal Salam’, which were inappropriate for the occasion and deeply hurt the sentiments of the devotees. The 4 th respondent, Kshethara Vikasana Samithy, due to their political interest, granted approval for such performances. 5. The petitioner further states that the singer, Aloshi, made an announcement over the mike that he performed the songs as per the request of the office bearers of the temple and that, if any issue arises, the office bearers should take the responsibility. In support of his claim, the petitioner has produced Ext.P2 video clip broadcasted by Janam TV on 24.04.2025. The petitioner, Sri. N. Prakash, would further point out that the singer, Aloshi, performed political songs on 10.03.2025 during the annual festival of Kadakkal Devi Temple, and an FIR was registered against him. When he performed the political songs, the flags of the political party were also displayed. 6. The petitioner further submitted that on 27.04.2025, during a marriage function conducted in ‘Kailasa Mandapam’ of Tali Maha Kshethram, Kozhikode, the slogans of the Communist Party like ‘SFI Zindabad’ were raised. The petitioner produced Ext.P4 video clip published by Jananm TV on 01.05.2025. 7. The petitioner would further submit that under Section 15A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, it is the duty of the Devaswom Board to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies are performed according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions. The petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Hindu Seva Kendram v. State of Kerala and others , [ 2023 (3) KHC 258 ] and Sinilkumar E. K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board , [ 2023 (5) KHC 85 ] . In Hindu Seva Kendram (supra), a Bench of this Court reiterated that politics has no role to play in the conduct of daily worship and ceremonies and festivals in temples. 8. In Hindu Seva Kendram (supra), a Bench of this Court reiterated that politics has no role to play in the conduct of daily worship and ceremonies and festivals in temples. 8. The main grievance projected by the petitioner is that the temple premises were used for the promotion of political activities. Such activities are inappropriate and hurt the feelings of the devotees. He has pointed out several instances at the Tali Temple, Kozhikode, Sree Indilayappan Temple, Attingal and Kadakkal Devi Temple. 9. The 2 nd respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that it is not pragmatic to issue any directions by the Devaswom Boards regulating the selection of any forms of events or performing acts, other than those connected with the customary poojas, rites, and rituals of the temple. The right of administration of the temples, within the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (HR & CE Act), 1951 is vested with the Trustees and they are bound to administer the temple in accordance with the terms of the Trust deed and usages of the institution. Further, it is submitted that any misuse of the temple and its precincts, violating the provisions of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for the sake of brevity), is actionable under the said Act for which direction from this Court seems to be unnecessary. Moreover, innumerable people had participated, and enjoyed the cultural events referred to in the Writ Petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent would further submit that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, since the civil or constitutional rights of the petitioner were not infringed. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions of the petitioner and the learned counsels for the respondents. 11. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to various provisions of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, Act No.41 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of religious institutions for political and other purposes. 12. Section 3 of the Act states that a religious institution or its manager shall not use or allow the use of its premises for the promotion and propagation of any political activities. Section 3 of the Act reads thus: “3. The object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of religious institutions for political and other purposes. 12. Section 3 of the Act states that a religious institution or its manager shall not use or allow the use of its premises for the promotion and propagation of any political activities. Section 3 of the Act reads thus: “3. Prohibition of use of religious institutions for certain purposes.— No religious institution or manager thereof shall use or allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution— (a) for the promotion or propagation of any political activity; or (b) for the harbouring of any person accused or convicted of an offence under any law for the time being in force; or (c) for the storing of any arms or ammunition; or (d) for keeping any goods or articles in contravention of any law for the time being in force; or (e) for erecting or putting up of any construction or fortification, including basements, bunkers, towers or walls without a valid licence or permission under any law for the time being in force; or (f) for the carrying on of any unlawful or subversive act prohibited under any law for the time being in force or in contravention of any order made by any court; or (g) for the doing of any act which promotes or attempts to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or (h) for the carrying on of any activity prejudicial to the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; or (i) for the doing of any act in contravention of the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (69 of 1971).” 13. Section 5 of the Act prohibits the use of funds of religious institutions for the benefit of any political party. Further, Section 6 of the Act prohibits that a religious institution or manager thereof shall not allow any ceremony, festival, congregation, procession etc. organised or held under its auspices to be used for any political activity. Section 7 of the Act imposes penalties for the violation of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6. 14. Section 2 of the Act defines the term ‘political activity’, ‘political party’ and ‘religious institution’. “ 2. organised or held under its auspices to be used for any political activity. Section 7 of the Act imposes penalties for the violation of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6. 14. Section 2 of the Act defines the term ‘political activity’, ‘political party’ and ‘religious institution’. “ 2. xxxxxxxxx “(d) “political activity” includes any activity promoting or propagating the aims or objects of a political party or any cause, issue or question of a political nature by organising meetings, demonstrations, processions, collection or disbursement of funds, or by the issue of directions or decrees, or by any other means, and includes also such activity by or on behalf of a person seeking election as a candidate for any election to Parliament, any State Legislature or any local authority; (e) “political party” means an association or body of persons— (i) which is, or is deemed to be, registered, with the Election Commission of India as a political party under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, as in force for the time being; or (ii) which has set up candidates for election to any legislature, but is not registered, or deemed to be registered, as a political party, under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968; or (iii) organised to carry on any political activity or to acquire or exercise political power through election or otherwise; (f) “religious institution” means an institution for the promotion of any religion or persuasion, and includes any place or premises used as a place of public religious worship, by whatever name or designation known.” 15. In Sinilkumar E. K. (supra), a Bench of this Court observed that the temple is the focal point in the life of a community and often represents its pride, identity and unity. 16. There cannot be any doubt that Section 3 of the Act prohibits the use of the religious institutions or its premises for propagation and promotion of political activities. Section 7 of the Act also provides the penalty for the violation of Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Act. This Court in Hindu Seva Kendram (supra) and Sinilkumar E. K. (supra), made it clear that politics has no role to play in temples. Section 7 of the Act also provides the penalty for the violation of Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Act. This Court in Hindu Seva Kendram (supra) and Sinilkumar E. K. (supra), made it clear that politics has no role to play in temples. This Court reiterated the same principle in Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala , [ 2023 (2) KHC 290 ] and Jayakumar J. v. State of Kerala , [2023 KHC OnLine 866] 17. In Vishnu Sunil (Adv.), Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Kadakkal Temple Advisory Committee Represented by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram , [2025 KHC OnLine 445] , this court held that politics has no role to play in Temple worship, and cultural or social activities unconnected with Temple worship have no place in Temple festivals. This Court issued directions to the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials to take necessary steps to ensure that no ‘political activity’ as defined in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 takes place in any temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board, in connection with any religious activities, festivals, ceremonies etc., of temple, in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of with the following directions: 1. The respondents 1 to 3 and its officers shall ensure that the premises of the religious institutions under their control or superintendence shall not be used for the promotion or propagation of any political activity. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 shall ensure that the provisions of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, are scrupulously complied with within the various temples under their control or superintendence. 3. If any violation of the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act were brought to the notice of the respondents 1 to 3 and its officers, shall take necessary steps to inform such activities to the law enforcing authority without any delay so that appropriate action can be taken in accordance with law. 4. The respondents 1 to 3 shall issue fresh directives to the religious institutions under their control of superintendence to ensure that the provisions of the Act are strictly adhered to.