Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Vishnunarayanan & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary, Department of Revenue & Devaswom, Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 26003 of 2017, 13823, 13834, 14067, 14136, 14283, 14484 of 2021
Decided On : 27-02-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility criteria for melsanthies. (Para 1) |
| 2. legal framework regarding administrative control. (Para 2 , 10) |
| 3. arguments focusing on constitutional rights and regulations for temple appointments. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 4. implications of court rulings on appointments. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. principles established regarding religious practices. (Para 25 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. overarching conclusions on religious freedoms. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 7. court's emphasis on constitutional principles against caste-based appointment practices. (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
| INDEX | ||
| Sl. No. | Description | Pages |
| 1. | Background and pleadings | 12-31 |
| 2. | Provisions under the TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ACT , 1950 | 32-38 |
| 3. | Whether State of Kerala through Revenue (Devaswom) Department have administrative control over Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom and whether Travancore Devaswom Board is fully controlled by the State | 39-42 |
| 4. | The guidelines and terms of settlement in the matter of appointment of Melsanthies in Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom. | 42-67 |
| 5. | Applicability of the provisions under the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Act, 2015 and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Rules, 2015 in the matter of appointment of Melsanthies in Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom | 67-72 |
| 6. | Challenge against clause 1 of the conditions which form part of the notifications for the year 1193ME (2017-18) and 1197ME (2021-22) to the extent it restricts applications only from Malayali Brahmin – interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14 - issue left open in view of the order of reference to larger Bench in Kantararu Rajeevaru [Right to Religion, In re 9 J.] v. Indian Young Lawyers Association [(2020) 3 SCC 52] | 72-147 |
| 7. | Whether clause 1 of the conditions which forms part of the notifications for the year 1193ME (2017-18) and 1197ME (2021-22) to the extent it restricts applications only from Malayali Brahmin would amount to untouchability abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution | 147-180 |
'Melsanthies' of Sabarimala Devaswom (Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple) and Malikappuram Devaswom (Malikappuram Temple) are appointed for a period of one year. Every year, the Travancore Devaswom Board invites applications for appointment of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom and makes appointments following the procedure prescribed. The notification issued for the year 1193ME (2017-18) is in question in W.P.(C) No.26003 of 2017. The notification issued for the year 1197ME (2021-22) is in question in the other writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) Nos. 13823, 13834, 14067, 14136, 14283 and 14484 of 2021. In all the writ petitions, the challenge is against the eligibility criteria prescribed in those notifications that the applicant shall be a ‘Malayala Brahmin’. Since the questions involved are common, these writ petitions were heard together.
1.1. Going by the averments in the writ petitions, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26003 of 2017 is working as Melsanthi at Sree Subramanian Swamy Temple, Pallom, Kottayam District; the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13823 of 2021 is working as Melsanthi at Valavanad Puthenkavu Devi Temple, Pollethai, Alappuzha District; the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13834 of 2021 is working as Melsanthi at Sree Ambikavilasom Arayankavu Devi Temple, Panavally, Alappuzha District; the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14067 of 2021, who is a qualified Priest, is working at Sree Mahadeva Temple, Nagambadom, Kottayam District; the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14136 of 2021 is working as Melsanthi at Sree Chidambara Temple, Kanjani, Thrissur District and the 2nd petitioner is working as Melsanthi at Vishnupuram Sree Narasimhamoorthy Temple, Chalakkudy, Thrissur District; the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14283 of 2021 is working as
Exclusion of other castes from the position of Melsanthi based on heritage does not violate constitutional rights, as it respects longstanding religious practices and customs integral to the temple's....
Caste-based restrictions in the appointment of priests violate constitutional rights to equality and must align with qualifications, not caste.
The appointment of Archakas in temples constructed as per Agamas shall be governed by the Agamas and not by the Rules framed by the State Government.
The entry of non-Hindus into Hindu temples can be permitted if sanctioned by temple authorities, emphasizing the role of customs and the authority of the Thanthri while upholding the statutory provis....
Caste cannot claim ownership of a temple as it is deemed public unless declared private; only distinct religious groups qualify as denominations under constitutional protections.
The court established that disputes regarding hereditary claims and functions related to temple duties should be resolved in civil court rather than through writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the secular....
The appointment of an Archaka is a secular act and hence, the hereditary right cannot be claimed.
The court affirmed that access to public temples cannot be restricted based on caste or community, emphasizing the fundamental right to worship under Article 25 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
