Advocates:
A. RAGHUNATHBABY KRISHNAN

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 14

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 6965 of 1996

PETITIONER:

N. Adithayan

RESPONDENT:

The Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/10/2002

BENCH:

S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Raju, J.

The question that is sought to be raised in the appeal is as to

whether the appointment of a person, who is not a Malayala Brahmin,

as "Santhikaran" or Poojari (Priest) of the Temple in question

Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple at Alangad Village in Ernakulam

District, Kerala State, is violative of the constitutional and statutory

rights of the appellant. A proper and effective answer to the same

would involve several vital issues of great constitutional, social and

public importance, having, to certain extent, religious overtones also.

The relevant facts, as disclosed from the pleadings, have to be

noticed for a proper understanding and appreciation of the questions

raised in this appeal. The appellant claims himself to be a Malayala

Brahmin by community and a worshipper of the Siva Temple in

question. The Administration of the Temple vests with Travancore

Devaswom Board, a statutory body created under the Travancore

Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. One Shri K.K.

Mohanan Poti was working as temporary Santhikaran at this Temple,

but due to complaints with reference to his performance and conduct,

his services were not regularized and came to be dispensed with by

an order dated 6.8.1993. In his place, the third respondent, who

figured at rank No.31 in the list prepared on 28.4.1993, was ordered

to be appointed as a regular Santhikaran and the Devaswom

Commissioner also confirmed the same on 20.9.1993. The second

respondent did not allow him to join in view of a letter said to have

been received from the head of the Vazhaperambu Mana for the

reason that the third respondent was a non-Brahmin. The Devaswom

Commissioner replied that since under the rules regulating the

appointment there is no restriction for the appointment of a non-

Brahmin as a Santhikaran, the appointment was in order and directed

the second respondent to allow him to join and perform his duties.

Though, on 12.10.1993 the third respondent was permitted to join by

an order passed on the same day, the appointment was stayed by a

learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court and one Sreenivasan

Poti came to be engaged on duty basis to perform the duties of

Santhikaran, pending further orders. The main grievance and ground

of challenge in the Writ Petition filed in the High Court was that the

appointment of a non-Brahmin Santhikaran for the Temple in

question offends and violates the alleged long followed mandatory

custom and usage of having only Malayala Brahmins for such jobs of

performing poojas in the Temples and this denies the right of the

worshippers to practice and profess their religion in accordance with

its tenets and manage their religious affairs as secured under Articles

25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Thanthri of a Temple is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 14

stated to be the final authority in such matters and the appointment in

question was not only without his consultation or approval but against

his wish, too.

The Travancore Devaswom Board had formulated a Scheme

and opened a Thanthra Vedantha School at Tiruvalla for the purpose

of training Santhikarans and as per the said Scheme prepared by

Swami Vyomakesananda and approved by the Board on 7.5.1969 the

School was opened to impart training to students, irrespective of their

caste/community. While having Swami Vyomakesananda as the

Director Late Thanthri Thazhman Kandarooru Sankaru and

Thanthri Maheswara Bhattathiripad, Keezhukattu Illam were

committee members. On being duly and properly trained and on

successfully completing the course, they were said to have been

given ‘Upanayanam’ and ‘Shodasa Karma’ and permitted to wear the

sacred t