The Kerala High Court ruled that the appointment of santhis (temple priests) cannot be restricted to a specific caste or ancestry. Such caste-based or lineage restrictions do not qualify as essential religious practices under the Constitution of India.
The Kerala High Court determined that the appointment of santhis (temple priests) cannot be restricted to individuals from a specific caste or lineage, asserting that such restrictions do not qualify as essential religious practices warranting constitutional protection in India.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice KV Jayakumar upheld a decision by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB) to accept experience certificates from ‘Thanthra Vidyalayas’ for the hiring of part-time temple priests.
Also Read: Why Is the Lokpal Buying BMWs? Public Outcry Over Rs.70 Lakh Car Tender
This ruling followed a petition from the Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam, an organization of around 300 traditional Thanthri families in Kerala that trains the next generation of priests in temple rituals.
The society, led by its president Easanan Namboodiripad, challenged the recruitment process that allowed temple priests to be appointed based on qualifications from Thanthra Vidyalayas.
The case focused on Qualification No 2(ii) under Rule 6(1)(b) of the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service Rules, 2022.
This rule, established under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015, stated that “eligibility for part-time temple priests required a certificate in Santhi Course from any Thantic Vidya Peedams or any such reputed institutions approved by TDB/KDRB.”
The petitioners contended that the TDB and KDRB overstepped their authority by recognizing certain Thanthra Vidyalayas for issuing experience certificates, claiming these institutions lacked adequate Thanthric education.
They argued that this move undermined traditional education and circumvented the established practice of certification by experienced temple Thanthris.
The petitioners maintained that appointments should align with religious texts like the Agamas and Thanthrasamuchayam, asserting this practice as essential to their faith.
However, the Bench referenced a 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, which stated that the appointment of Archakas (temple priests) is fundamentally a secular function performed by a trustee.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court stated,
“The contention of the petitioners that the appointment of Santhis shall be made in accordance with the religious texts and authorities, such as the Agamas and Tantrasamuchayam, as it constitutes an essential religious practice, cannot be accepted.”
During hearings, the respondent authorities argued that the petitioners aimed to maintain hereditary privileges and caste-based recruitment, particularly since the Samajam consisted solely of Brahmin community members.
The Court emphasized that caste or lineage-based appointment does not receive constitutional protection as an essential religious practice.
The Court stated on October 22,
“To insist that a person must belong to a particular caste or lineage to be eligible for appointment cannot, in our considered view, be construed as an insistence upon an essential religious practice, rite, or mode of worship. No factual or legal foundation has been established to justify such a claim in the present case. The contention that individuals unconnected with spiritual functions are being considered for such posts and that this infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India is untenable,”
It further asserted that no custom or usage, even if it dates back to pre-constitutional times, could be recognized as law if it infringes on human rights, dignity, or the constitutional principles of social equality.
It added,
“Any custom or practice that is oppressive, pernicious, contrary to public policy, or in derogation of the law of the land cannot receive recognition or protection from courts exercising jurisdiction under the Constitution,”
The Court noted that the Thantra Vidyalaya system for certifying candidates as suitable for temple priest positions is thorough. Students completing the course undergo initiation ceremonies, indicating their readiness for temple duties.
Additionally, final selections are made on merit by a committee that includes learned scholars and a reputable Thanthri, ensuring candidates’ competence and eligibility for religious rites.
The Court found that the rules set by TDB and KDRB for appointing temple priests through this method followed procedural safeguards, as objections were invited. It also dismissed the Samajam’s claim of being a religious denomination under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), stating they failed to demonstrate a distinct common faith or organizational structure.
Article 26 of the Indian Constitution: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs
Article 26 guarantees the rights of every religious denomination or any section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. It is one of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution that protects religious freedom and autonomy of religious institutions.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it. Advocate KR Raj Kumar represented the petitioners, while standing counsel G Biju and VV Nandagopal represented the TDB and KDRB, respectively.
Case Title: Akhila Kerala Thantri Samajam & anr v State of Kerala & ors
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
