A division bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan has now issued notices to the State of Kerala (through the Devaswom Department), the Devaswom Commissioner, and the Travancore Devaswom Board.
NEW DELHI: On Friday (Aug 9): The Supreme Court requested a response from the Kerala Government regarding a plea that challenges a notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board.
This notification mandates that candidates for the position of Melshanthi (high priest) at the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple must belong to the Malayala Brahmin community.
A division bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan has now issued notices to the State of Kerala (through the Devaswom Department), the Devaswom Commissioner, and the Travancore Devaswom Board.
The Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on October 25.
Background
The Kerala High Court had previously dismissed a series of petitions on February 27, which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court. 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.”
The petitioners, two priests who are not Brahmins, argue that limiting the selection of the high priest to individuals from the Malayala Brahmin community violates constitutional rights. The High Court had dismissed their writ petitions, primarily on the grounds of insufficient pleadings, and rejected the argument that the Travancore Devaswom Board’s notification amounted to untouchability.
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.
The High Court had stated that Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution protects the right to enter a temple for worship but does not grant the right to perform priestly duties, which are reserved for Archakas (priests). Referring to the Constitution Bench’s ruling in the Sri Venkataramana Devaru case [AIR 1985 SC 255], the High Court clarified that the right to temple entry does not imply an unrestricted right to perform religious services.
However, the High Court also clarified that the arguments based on Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution could be revisited if the Supreme Court’s position changes in the ongoing 9-judge Sabarimala case concerning the entry of women into the Ayyappa temple.
The Travancore Devaswom Board, a government body overseeing the Sabarimala temple, had issued a notification on May 27, 2021, calling for applications to the post of Santhikkaran (priest) at the Sabarimala Dharmasastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, exclusively from members of the Malayala Brahmin community.
A plea challenging this notification was filed in July 2021, arguing that it disregarded Supreme Court judgments and violated Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that the appointment of the Melshanthi is a secular act and should not be restricted to a particular community, especially in an institution managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, which is under the control of the Kerala government.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Reviews VHP Request for Free Shuttle Services for Sabarimala Pilgrims
They further argued that appointing non-Brahmin candidates to the position would not infringe upon the rights protected by Articles 25 (freedom of religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), as long as the candidates are fully qualified and trained for the duties, regardless of their caste.
The appellants are represented by a legal team including Advocates Dr. G Mohan Gopal, Diya Kapur, Siddharth Nath, Asjad Hussain, Anunay Chowdhury, Gahena Gambani, Raghav Kumar, and Aditya Ladha.
Case Title: Sijith TL and Another v. State of Kerala and Others
