The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Kerala government on a notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board mandating that a candidate applying for the post of Melshanthi (high priest) of the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple should be from the Malayala Brahmin community.
The Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the State of Kerala (through the Devaswom Department), Devaswom Commissioner, the Travancore Devaswom Board, and listed the matter for further hearing on October 25.
The petitioners, two non-Brahmin priests, contended before the Apex Court that restricting the selection of the high priest to persons from the Malayala Brahmin community was violative of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
The petitioners challenged the February 27, 2024 verdict of the the Kerala High Court, which rejected a batch of writ petitions on want of merit.
The High Court also rejected the contention that the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board would amount to untouchability under Article 17 of the Constitution.
It said the right under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution was only a right to enter the temple for worship and did not confer any right to perform services, which only Archakas (priests) were entitled to perform.
No member of Hindu public could claim as part of the rights protected by Article 25(2)(b) that a temple must be kept open for worship at all hours of the day and night or that he should personally perform those services, which the Archakas alone could perform, added the High Court.
However, the High Court clarified that the contentions raised on the basis of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution were left open to be agitated in case the Supreme Court’s position on the same changed in its 9-judge Sabarimala case relating to the entry of women inside the Ayyappa temple.
The Travancore Devaswom Board (the government body which governs the Sabarimala temple) through a notification dated May 27, 2021, had called for applications to the post of Santhikkaran (priest) at Sabarimala Dharmasastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, from among the Malayala Brahmin community members alone.
One of the petitions filed before the Court in July 2021 had challenged this notification on the ground that it was in total disregard to the Supreme Court judgments, as well as Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21 of the Constitution.
The plea said the appointment to the post of Melshanthi has been held to be a secular act and that it ought not to have been confined to one particular community, especially in an institution administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board, which was fully controlled by the Government of Kerala.
It was further contended that Articles 25 (freedom of religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) cannot be said to be infringed in appointing persons other than Brahmins to the post, as long as the appointment was from among persons who were fully qualified and trained in their duties irrespective of their caste.
The appellants were represented by Advocates Dr G Mohan Gopal, Diya Kapur, Siddharth Nath, Asjad Hussain, Anunay Chowdhury, Gahena Gambani, Raghav Kumar and Aditya Ladha.
The post Caste controversy: Supreme Court issues notice to Kerala government on appointment of priest to Sabarimala Temple appeared first on India Legal.