The Kerala High Court upheld the Travancore Devaswom Board’s notification, requiring Sabarimala Temple’s Melshanthi to be from the Malayala Brahmin community. The court dismissed challenges, citing inadequate pleadings, and affirmed the caste criteria outlined in the 2021 notification. The decision has sparked controversy over constitutional rights and the appointment process for the prestigious role.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kerala : On 27th February, The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, rejected a series of petitions challenging a notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, which mandated that candidates applying for the position of Melshanthi (High Priest) at the Sabarimala Temple must belong to the Malayala Brahmin community.
Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajith Kumar, the division bench handling the case, delivered the verdict, dismissing the pleas that argued the restriction violated constitutional rights.
The Court highlighted the deficiency in pleadings and grounds presented in the writ petitions. The Court noted-
“There is a total lack of pleadings and grounds raised in the writ petitions.”
Despite arguments referencing Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the Court maintained that the challenge lacked proper pleadings, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.
The Court clarified its stance, stating-
“In the absence of proper pleadings on Articles 25 and 26, we are of the view that there is no need to keep these writ petitions open for the larger bench of the Supreme Court to decide on the issue.”
However, the Court emphasized that the contentions from both sides are open to be raised in future proceedings.
The controversy stemmed from a notification by the Travancore Devaswom Board on May 27, 2021, calling for applications exclusively from the Malayala Brahmin community for the post of Santhikkaran at Sabarimala Dharmasastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple.
A petition filed in July 2021 challenged this notification, alleging a disregard for Supreme Court judgments and Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the appointment to the Melshanthi post, considered a secular act, should not be confined to a specific community within an institution controlled by the Government of Kerala.
The argument further contended that Articles 25 and 26 were not infringed by appointing individuals outside the Brahmin community, as long as they were qualified and trained for the role, irrespective of their caste.
Representing petitioners, Dr. Mohan Gopal asserted that the notification violated the constitutional prohibition against practicing untouchability. He emphasized that the Sabarimala temple, being non-denominational, should allow priests without caste barriers, linking the right to priesthood with the right to worship without discrimination.
Gopal pointed to the precedent set in N Adithayan v The Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors., where the Supreme Court upheld the right of a non-Malayala Brahmin to be appointed as a priest in a Shiva temple under the same board’s administration.
ALSO READ:Gyanvapi Case | Allahabad High Court Postpones Matter To February 12
Despite these arguments, the Kerala High Court upheld the caste restrictions outlined in the Devaswom Board’s 2021 notification, effectively dismissing the petitions.
CASE TITLE: [M Viju v. Travancore Devaswom Board]
