Kerala HC Declines to Ban Kodathi Vilakku, Directs Guruvayur Devaswom to Consider Renaming It
A Division Bench at Ernakulam refused to prohibit the decades-old court-linked lamp festival at Guruvayur temple but asked the Devaswom to weigh a name change within three months to preserve the perception of judicial neutrality.
The High Court of Kerala, sitting at Ernakulam, has disposed of a suo motu Devaswom Board Petition concerning the annual “Kodathi Vilakku” lamp festival held during the Ekadashi celebrations at Sree Krishna Swami Temple, Guruvayur. The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, delivering the judgment on 29 July 2026, found no justification to ban the event but directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to consider whether a more appropriate name should replace “Kodathi Vilakku” — a term derived from the Malayalam word for Munsiff Court. The bench gave the committee three months to decide the question after hearing all affected parties.
How the Petition Reached Court
The proceedings began with a complaint dated 13 November 2024 filed by Smt. Rajeswari, Administrator of Gurubaba Ashram, Guruvayur. The complaint alleged that the practice of “Kodathi Vilakku” had been banned by the High Court in 2022 yet was still being conducted at the temple. The complainant attached newspaper reports showing the inauguration of cultural programmes in connection with the event at Melpathur Auditorium, Guruvayur.
On the basis of that complaint, DBP No. 124 of 2024 was registered as a suo motu petition. By an interim order dated 18 December 2024, the court impleaded the Sree Guruvayurappan Ekadashi Court Vilakku Celebration Committee, Chavakkad, as the additional 4th respondent. The matter came up for admission on 17 July 2026 and the judgment followed on 29 July 2026.
The three respondents named at inception were the State of Kerala (Revenue – Devaswom Department), the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee represented by its Administrator, and the Commissioner, Guruvayur Devaswom.
The Practice and Its Origins
The Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee filed a counter affidavit explaining the historical roots of the Chuttuvilakku tradition. According to the committee, the practice of lighting lamps around the sanctum during the Ekadashi festival began during the reign of the Zamoothiri Raja and has continued uninterrupted since then.
In earlier times, the counter stated, the number of temple visitors was low and the income of the temple insufficient to fund costly rituals such as Chuttuvilakku and Udayasthamana Pooja. The temple therefore sought financial support from affluent families and government and semi-government institutions — banks, the post office, and judicial institutions among them. During the Ekadashi festival, 18 Chuttuvilakkus were lit in the temple premises before Ekadashi itself.
Two of those lamps were historically associated with the courts: one conducted by lawyers of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad, and another, known as “Magistrate Vilakku”, conducted by lawyers practising in the Second Class Magistrate Court. When the bar at Chavakkad grew too small to sustain both events, the Magistrate Vilakku was surrendered to the Devaswom, which thereafter organised it as “Police Vilakku”. The Munsiff Vilakku was renamed “Kodathi Vilakku”.
The complaint had also referenced other named lamps — “Postal Vilakku”, “SBI Vilakku”, “Canara Bank Vilakku”, and “Dhanalakshmi Vilakku” — and sought their prohibition as well. The complainant's position was that the conduct of these events belittles the sanctity of Ekadashi Vratham, which should be observed with penance, and that courts, as secular constitutional institutions, cannot be associated with activities promoting a particular religion.
The Celebration Committee's Position
The additional 4th respondent, the Sree Guruvayurappan Ekadashi Court Vilakku Celebration Committee, filed its own counter affidavit. The committee was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act on 26 October 1988, with its founding members being advocates practising at Guruvayur. Its stated object, as set out in the Memorandum of Association, is to conduct the Vilakku during the Ekadashi festival at Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur.
The committee explained that as the number of advocates in Chavakkad courts grew, and since non-Hindu advocates were not permitted to enter the temple, it began arranging cultural activities on a stage near the temple premises. An evening meal was also organised so that advocate clerks and court employees of all faiths could participate.
On the question of funds, the committee stated that contributions were solicited exclusively from members of the religious fraternity once it became difficult to collect adequate amounts from the bar alone. An endowment was subsequently created: with sanction from the High Court by order No. D3/14383/15 dated 21 February 2015, a corpus of Rs. 9,75,000 was deposited with the Guruvayur Devaswom in the name of the Munsiff, Chavakkad.
The committee also denied that any High Court order had ever directly banned the Ekadashi Vilakku conducted by the committee, and contested the complainant's characterisation of the 2022 communication as a prohibition.
The 2022 Official Memorandum
The pivot of the complaint was a High Court Official Memorandum bearing No. D1-3/138984/2022 dated 1 November 2022. The bench reproduced the relevant portions of that memorandum in the judgment. It recorded that the High Court had taken notice of an annual event hosted under the banner of “Kodathi Vilakku” by an organising committee comprising, among others, members of the Chavakkad Munsiff Court Bar Association.
The memorandum stated that while there was no objection to bar members organising such events individually or collectively, “the use of the name Kodathi Vilakku is unacceptable for it gives the impression that the courts in our State are in some way connected with the organization of the event.” It further observed that judicial officers of all ranks, including those professing other religions, felt compelled or obliged to attend an event that was also attended by High Court judges, making the term misleading. Accordingly, judicial officers in the Thrissur Judicial District were advised not to actively involve themselves in organising the event and were told they should not feel compelled or obliged to attend.
On the bench's reading, the 2022 memorandum issued directions to judicial officers and raised concerns about the name, but did not prohibit the conduct of the Vilakku by the organising committee itself. That distinction was material to how the court resolved the petition.
The Bench's Reasoning
Justice K. V. Jayakumar, who authored the order, prefaced the judgment with the Sanskrit verse Nāma-rūpe vyākaroti — names and forms are only ways of distinguishing things; they do not define their ultimate essence — a choice that framed the court's central concern as one of nomenclature rather than practice.
The bench found that the event was organised by advocates practising before the Chavakkad Court, though contributions were also received from judicial officers. On the materials before it, the court found no evidence that any judicial officer was required or compelled to participate. Equally, there was no material indicating that the event was conducted in a manner inconsistent with constitutional or institutional principles.
Given those findings, the bench declined to issue any prohibition. The reasoning was direct: absent compulsion or institutional irregularity, the conduct of the Vilakku could not be prohibited.
The court's concern was narrower. The name “Kodathi Vilakku” may, the bench observed, inadvertently create the impression of an institutional association between the judiciary and an event connected with a particular religious tradition. Even without compulsion, the nomenclature itself could undermine the perception of judicial neutrality. This was precisely the concern that had animated the 2022 memorandum.
The bench stopped short of directing a specific name change. Instead, it held that the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee — as the body responsible for the conduct of Vilakkus in the temple — should itself consider whether a more suitable name could be adopted, after giving notice to and hearing all affected parties.
Outcome
The Division Bench disposed of DBP No. 124 of 2024 with a single operative direction: the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee is to consider the issue of adopting a more appropriate name in place of “Kodathi Vilakku”, after issuing notice to all affected parties and affording them a hearing. The Managing Committee must take an appropriate decision within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment. No prohibition on the conduct of the Vilakku or any other named lamp festival was issued.