Temple Dance Forms Of 'Kootu', 'Koodiyattam' Are Religious Ritual Ceremony, Performance Cannot Be Altered Without Tantris Consent: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court held that temple dance art forms 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' are religious and ritual ceremonies and whether they can be performed by other Hindu artists apart from members of a certain family are matters to be decided by the Tantris of the Temple. The Court stated that Devaswom Managing Committee cannot make performance alteration decisions without the consent of the Tantris.The Court was considering whether the decision of the temple management committee that temple dance form 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' performed at the Koothambalam (temple theatre) in the Koodalmanikyam Temple in Irinjalakuda could be permitted to be performed by other Hindu artists apart from members of Ammannoor Family without the consent of the Tantris of the temple. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar held that the state government will be able to permit other Hindu artists to perform Koothu and Koodiyattam only with the consent of Tantris without affecting the Temple rituals and practices in any manner. Background FactsThe petitioners are members of Ammannoor Family who claim to have a hereditary right to perform Koothu and Koodiyattam in the Koothambalam. They have approached the Court challenging the resolution passed by the temple authorities in permitting other Hindu artists to perform Koothu and Koodiyattam in the temple. Advocate KS Bharathan, for the petitioners contended that performing Koothu and Koodiyattam is part of religious and ritualistic ceremonial worship of the Deity followed since times immemorial and their family members can alone do it after undergoing an ordination ceremony. It was argued that altering their customary rights by permitting other Hindus to perform Koothu and Koodiyattam was illegal and would violate Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the rights of the Deity and devotees.The respondents submitted before the Court that the Koothambalam (temple theatre) remains idle for most part of the year since the Ammannoor Family members perform only 41 days a year during the temple festival. It was argued that the rights of Ammannoor Family members would not be affected by permitting other artists to perform on other days. It was stated that the Koothambalam (temple theatre) is a heritage structure made of wood and it was getting corroded by worms without regular use. It was also argued that the performance of Koothu and Koodiyattam was not permitted to be seen by the audience and they could only view it from the windows of the Koothambalam. It was stated that not permitting the audience to view such temple dance forms would not promote Temple art forms and is against the public interest. It was also argued that since there is no entry restriction in the temple, there cannot be restrictions upon other performers and audiences to enter Koothambalam.Observations The Court found that Ammannoor Family members perform Koothu and Koodiyattam at the temple for 41 days in a year and Koothambalam remains closed for the remaining period. The Court found that the Department of Archaeology, Government of India had to spent around 3.5 crores of rupees to repair the Kothambalam from degeneration since it was not used regularly. The Court further noted that Koodiyattam is recognized by UNESCO as a cultural heritage of humanity and it has to be ensured that it does get extinct or endangered. The Court relying upon Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others (2022) observed that there is a Constitutional obligation to preserve religious practices and a corresponding duty to ensure that experts in the field of religion to decide about the rituals and ceremonies to be performed. It thus stated that whether Kootu and Koodiyattam could be performed by other Hindu artists during the remaining days in a year has to be decided with the consent of the Tantris only. It also referred to Section 35 of the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act which states that Tantris are the final authority to decide in religious matters. Section 10 of the Act describes the duties of the Managing Committee. “ the performance of 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' at the Koothambalam in the Koodalmanikyam Temple is a religious and ritual ceremony. In the light of the proposition of law mentioned above, and in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, the suggestion of the petitioners that 'Koothu' and 'Koodiyattam' as a devotion to the Deity can be performed throughout the year, is a matter to be decided by the Tantris and not by the 2nd respondent. If consented by respondents No.6 to 11, who are the Tantris, the 2nd respondent will be able to implement the decision without affecting the Temple rituals and practices in any manner”, stated the Court. The Court went on to state that the respondents cannot alter a prevailing religious practice based on the decision of the temple managing committee but it can only be done with the consent of the Tantris. Regarding the right of worshippers to view...

Temple Dance Forms Of 'Kootu', 'Koodiyattam' Are Religious Ritual Ceremony, Performance Cannot Be Altered Without Tantris Consent: Kerala HC

Tellmy Jolly

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Temple Dance Forms Of 'Kootu', 'Koodiyattam' Are Religious Ritual Ceremony, Performance Cannot Be Altered Without Tantris Consent: Kerala HC

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