No Hindu Can Claim That They Want To Personally Perform Services Which Archakas Alone Can Perform: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the notification issued by the Devaswom Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the years 2017-18, 2021-22 for appointment of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom. The challenge was against the eligibility criteria given in the notifications that the applicant shall only be a 'Malayala Brahmin'.The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar relying upon the Apex Court decision in Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1985), Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) stated that Archakas are temple priests who perform essential poojas or ceremonies (Agamas) and it was considered as integral and essential religious practise protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. “As held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sri Venkataramana Devaru [AIR 1985 SC 255] the right protected by Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution is the right to enter into a temple for the purpose of worship. It does not follow from this that, this right is absolute and unlimited in character. No member of Hindu public could claim as part of the rights protected by Article 25(2)(b) that a temple must be kept open for worship at all hours of the day and night or that he should personally perform those services, which the Archakas alone could perform.”BackgroundThe petitioners allege that Malayala Brahmin does not have any special privilege and such restrictions are arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon Adithyan v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2002), it was argued that appointment should not be based on the criteria of caste or pedigree or any other criteria. Relying upon Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972), it was submitted that there was no law mandating that such appointments would be governed by the usage of hereditary succession. They submit that as long persons were fully versed, qualified perform to poojas, trained in duties, mantras, tantras, necessary vedas, irrespective of their caste, there was no infringement of freedom of religion under Article 25 and 26. On the other hand, the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Devaswom Commissioner submitted that the selection process was conducted as per the directions of the Apex Court and the High Court in various decisions. They submitted that the appointment of Melsanthies was not a caste-based selection or a matter of public employment, but a religious practice since time immemorial and thus discrimination could not be alleged. It stated that this being a matter of religious practice, the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 and rules framed thereunder would not apply and that the opinion of the Tantri of the temple was final and binding. ObservationsThe Court stated that Tantris of the temple were responsible for conducting poojas and religious ceremonies in the temple. It stated that Tantris who were responsible for conducting pooojas and ceremonies were not made a party in the writ petitions. And, it stated that the duties of members of the Travancore Devawsom Board were purely administrative in nature for ensuring that religious rites, traditions were followed in accordance with recognized usages and that they do not touch upon the religious affairs of the Devaswoms. “We find absolutely no merits in the contention that the State of Kerala, through the Revenue (Devaswom) Department, have administrative control over Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom and that, the Travancore Devaswom Board is fully controlled by the State”, stated the Court. Referring to Krishnan Namboothiri S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others (2015), the Court stated that selection to the post of Melsanthi cannot be treated as a selection merely for public employment and the canvas in which grounds relating to Articles 14, 16, etc., of the Constitution of India would be etched, will not necessarily be carried, as a whole, into such matters."selection to the post of Melsanthi cannot be treated as a selection merely for public employment and the canvas in which grounds relating to Articles 14, 16, etc., of the Constitution of India would be etched, will not necessarily be carried, as a whole, into such matters"It referred to Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2018) to state that the selection of Melsanthies was not to discriminate against persons but only based to protect the sanctity of the deity. The Court relying upon various decisions stated that the parties have to plead their case and produce evidence to substantiate their pleadings which was lacking in these writ petitions. It stated that the Apex Court and High Court have framed guidelines pertaining to the selection of Melsanthies, and that the petitioners have not pleaded a case referring to that aspect and that there was total lack of pleadings. It stated that there no proper plea or sufficient...

No Hindu Can Claim That They Want To Personally Perform Services Which Archakas Alone Can Perform: Kerala High Court

Tellmy Jolly

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

No Hindu Can Claim That They Want To Personally Perform Services Which Archakas Alone Can Perform: Kerala High Court

Tellmy Jolly

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers