Padmanabha Temple: SC asks Subramaniam to continue as amicus

The Supreme Court today asked senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam to reconsider his decision to withdraw himself as amicus curaie and continue to assist it on the row over the administration and management of Kerala's famous Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple.
The apex court kept in abeyance former Solicitor General Subramaniam's plea seeking his discharge as amicus curaie and asked him reconsider his decision as he spent considerable time to go into the nitty gritty of the controversy surrounding the temple which is facing charges of financial irregularites.
"In view of the fact that Subramaniam has spent considerable time and in view of the nature of issues, we would ask him to reconsider his decision for discharge in the matter and think of continuing. We ask him to communicate about his decision after reconsideration," a bench comprising justices T S Thakur and A R Dave said.

The bench, which was ready to accept Subramaniam's plea, was requested by the counsel, appearing for some devotees, that he should be asked to continue as he has done tremendous work over the time.
He also raised objections to the submissions made by members of Travancore's royal family that Subramaniam as an amicus curaie overreached his mandate by levelling serious allegations against them in his report.
Subramaniam had withdrawn his consent to become a judge of the apex court after several allegations, including the one relating to his work as amicus curaie in the Padmanabha temple case, were raised.

Unhappy with the entire episode, he had written a letter to the Chief Justice of India that he would not appear in the apex court during his tenure.

Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for the head of the royal family Sri Rama Verma, alleged Subramaniam acted as a "detective" and CBI people and even intruded into the private palace.
He said the amicus even interfered with the rituals of the temple.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for female members of the royal family, submitted he would also file objections to Subramaniam's report.
The two-hour long hearing was utilised for apprising the newly-formed bench about the history of the temple and the dispute surrounding it.