Constitution of India
Article 290A: Annual payment to certain Devaswom Funds
Part XII — Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits (Chapter I — Finance: Miscellaneous Financial Provisions)
Article 290A (no sub-divisions — single article)
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. Rs. 46,50,000 shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Kerala every year to the Travancore Devaswom Fund. 2. Rs. 13,50,000 shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Tamil Nadu every year to the Devaswom Fund established for maintenance of Hindu temples and shrines. 3. The Tamil Nadu payment is specifically for territories transferred from Travancore-Cochin on 1 November 1956. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. These are 'charged expenditures' — paid automatically without requiring annual legislative approval or vote. 2. The States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu are constitutionally bound to include these payments in their budgets. 3. The amounts are fixed in the Constitution itself and cannot be altered except by a constitutional amendment. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Charged Expenditure — payments bypass the ordinary appropriation process and are non-votable. 2. Reflects the Indian model of secularism — State may financially support religious/cultural institutions for heritage preservation without violating secular principles.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. No direct foreign source — Article 290A is an ORIGINAL INDIAN PROVISION born from princely state integration history. INDIA'S SPECIFIC BACKGROUND: 1. Article VIII of the Travancore-Cochin Covenant (May 1949) — Rulers of Travancore and Cochin agreed that Travancore's obligation to pay Rs. 51 lakhs annually to the Devaswom Fund would continue as an obligation of the United State. 2. This obligation was originally confirmed by Article 238(10)(ii) of the Constitution (Part VII — now repealed). 3. When States Reorganisation Act, 1956 reorganised states, Part VII (Art. 238) was omitted; a new constitutional guarantee was needed. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Reduction from Rs. 51 lakhs to Rs. 46.5 lakhs for Kerala — because some Travancore-Cochin territory was transferred to Madras (now Tamil Nadu). 2. A separate Rs. 13.5 lakh allocation for Madras/Tamil Nadu — to ensure temples in transferred territories continued to receive support. 3. Constitutional entrenchment as a 'charged expenditure' — to insulate the payment from political whims and ensure continuity of a pre-Independence princely obligation.
Constituent Assembly Debate
NOT DEBATED IN CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY. REASON: Article 290A was NOT part of the original Constitution adopted on 26 November 1949. It was inserted later by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, Section 19, with effect from 1 November 1956. The Constituent Assembly therefore had no deliberations on this provision. PARLIAMENTARY BACKGROUND: 1. The Statement of Objects and Reasons (Clause 18) of the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Bill, 1956 [enacted as the 7th Amendment Act] explains the rationale. 2. It references Article VIII of the Travancore-Cochin Covenant (May 1949) and the earlier Art. 238(10)(ii). 3. The objective was to continue the existing Devaswom Fund arrangement after the formation of the new State of Kerala. SUBSEQUENT TEXTUAL CHANGE: 1. The word 'Madras' was substituted with 'Tamil Nadu' by the Madras State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1968 (Act 53 of 1968), s. 4, w.e.f. 14 January 1969.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) — SC (4:1 majority) held Sabarimala Temple (managed by TDB, funded under Art. 290A) could not exclude women aged 10-50; Art. 290A was discussed as evidence that the temple is publicly funded and State-administered, not a private denominational institution. 2. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954) — SC laid down the 'Essential Religious Practices' doctrine and held State can regulate secular activities of religious institutions but not essential practices; foundational for interpreting State-Devaswom Board relationship. 3. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2002) — SC upheld appointment of non-Brahmin priest in a temple administered by TDB, ruling that caste-based restrictions violate Articles 15 and 16; affirmed that Devaswom Board is a statutory body subject to constitutional mandates. NO MAJOR RULING DIRECTLY INTERPRETING ART. 290A: 1. Courts have not directly struck down or modified Art. 290A itself. 2. However, Art. 290A has featured as a key factual/legal premise in Sabarimala and temple management cases to establish the State's financial nexus with Devaswom Boards. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Indu Malhotra in Indian Young Lawyers Association (2018) — Dissented, holding that courts should not interfere with essential religious practices of a denomination and that State funding under Art. 290A alone does not make a temple lose its denominational character. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar — Observed that Indian secularism does not create a rigid wall between State and religion; the State can support religious heritage, consistent with Art. 290A's philosophy. 2. D.D. Basu — Noted Art. 290A as a unique constitutional provision preserving princely-era financial obligations to temple endowments after States Reorganisation.