Kerala High Court Scrutinizes Unregulated Appointments at Sabarimala, Demands Accountability Framework for Priests' Assistants

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA – In a significant move that could have far-reaching implications for the administration of religious institutions in India, the Kerala High Court has turned its judicial focus towards the largely unregulated appointment of assistants to the head priests ( melsanthis ) at the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha temple. A Division Bench, acting on its own initiative in a suo motu proceeding, has directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to provide a detailed affidavit clarifying the accountability mechanisms for these individuals, who operate within one of the country's most revered and sensitive pilgrimage sites.

The order, issued by a bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, stems from a case initially concerning the selection process for the head priests of the Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples. While the court was informed that the selection process for the 2025-26 term (1201 M.E.) was duly completed on October 18, 2025, in the presence of a court-appointed observer, the bench's inquiry pivoted to a critical, yet often overlooked, aspect of temple administration: the unofficial retinue serving the head priest.

The Core of the Judicial Inquiry: An Accountability Vacuum

The court's probe began with a specific question directed at the TDB's counsel regarding the appointment and oversight of the individuals who assist the melsanthis . The response from the TDB revealed a system rooted in personal discretion rather than institutional procedure. The counsel submitted that approximately 20 assistants are personally selected by the incoming melsanthi and "serve at his discretion and pleasure during his entire tenure."

This admission immediately raised red flags for the bench, prompting further questions about the institutional oversight of these appointments. The TDB’s counsel elaborated that these assistants are "personally engaged and maintained by the Melshanthi, without any financial burden for the TDB." While this arrangement absolves the TDB of financial responsibility, the court’s subsequent directions indicate a deep concern that it may also create a dangerous vacuum in legal and administrative accountability.

Recognizing the gravity of the issue, the court has mandated the TDB to furnish a comprehensive affidavit addressing several pointed questions. This directive transforms a procedural hearing into a substantive examination of governance, security, and liability within temple premises.

Key Directives and Their Legal Implications

The High Court's order demands clarity on five critical points, each carrying significant legal weight:

• Identity and Verification: The TDB must provide the "names and full identities" of all persons assisting the melsanthis for the current year. This is the first step towards formalizing a previously informal system, moving from anonymity to official recognition.
• Antecedent Checks: The court explicitly asks "whether any verification or inquiry has been carried out with regard to their antecedents, background, or character." This question directly addresses security concerns and the duty of care owed by the TDB to the millions of pilgrims who visit Sabarimala. The absence of such checks could be interpreted as a significant lapse in administrative diligence.
• Credential Authentication: The directive to clarify if "identity proofs or credentials...are obtained and verified" underscores the need for a basic, yet fundamental, level of due diligence. In a high-security zone like the Sannidhanam, unverified individuals pose a potential risk that the court is unwilling to ignore.
• Continuity and Influence: By asking whether any of these assistants have served under previous melsanthis , the court is probing the possibility of an entrenched, informal cadre operating outside the TDB's official structure. This could have implications for transparency and the continuity of practices, both sanctioned and unsanctioned.
• Fixing Accountability: The most crucial element of the court's order is the demand for information on "the manner in which responsibility or accountability is fixed" if an assistant is involved in "objectionable, unlawful, or reprehensible acts." This strikes at the heart of the legal issue. By allowing the melsanthi to appoint his own staff without institutional oversight, the TDB may be inadvertently creating a legal grey area. The court is now forcing the TDB to confront questions of vicarious liability and institutional responsibility for the actions of individuals it permits to operate on its premises, regardless of their employment status.

Analysis: Beyond Administrative Procedure to Substantive Governance

The Kerala High Court's intervention in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. (SSCR 31/2025) is a masterclass in judicial oversight. It demonstrates a shift from merely ensuring procedural fairness in priest selection to scrutinizing the substantive governance and risk management framework of the TDB.

For legal professionals, particularly those practicing administrative and constitutional law, this case is a compelling study of a court leveraging its suo motu powers to enforce public accountability in quasi-public institutions. The TDB, established under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, is a statutory body accountable to the state and the courts. Its argument that it bears no financial burden for these assistants is unlikely to suffice as a defense against its non-delegable duty to ensure safety, security, and order within the temple premises.

The court's line of questioning implicitly challenges the notion that the TDB can abdicate its oversight responsibilities simply because it is not the paymaster. The legal principle of qui facit per alium facit per se (he who acts through another does the act himself) may be relevant here. While the melsanthi makes the appointment, the TDB provides the platform and sanction for these assistants to function. Therefore, an argument can be made that the TDB remains ultimately responsible for establishing the framework within which they operate.

This case could set a vital precedent, compelling Devaswom Boards and other religious trusts across the country to formalize their human resource protocols. It may lead to the mandatory registration, background verification, and issuance of identification for all individuals serving within temple precincts, regardless of their direct employment relationship with the governing body. Furthermore, it will force these institutions to clearly define the chain of command and the protocol for addressing misconduct, ensuring that personal discretion does not eclipse institutional accountability.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on October 31, when the TDB's affidavit will be presented. The legal community will be watching closely as the court's decision could redefine the boundaries of administrative responsibility and usher in a new era of transparency and accountability in the governance of India's religious institutions.