Right of Hindu public under Article 25 only to enter temple for worship, no fundamental right to perform role of priest: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution to enter a temple for worship does not give the right to any member of the Hindu community to perform the role of Archakas (priests). [Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary].A division bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar said that the right to worship under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution is not absolute and a devotee for instance, cannot claim that a temple should be kept open 24 hours a day or that he should be allowed to perform rituals which only priests can perform."As held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sri Venataramana Devaru [AIR 1985 SC 255] the right protected by Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution is the right to enter into a temple for the purpose of worship. It does not follow from this that, this right is absolute and unlimited in character. 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," the Court said..The observation was made while upholding 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 petitioners before the Court had challenged this notification on the ground that it was in total disregard to Supreme Court judgments and Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21 of the Constitution.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 is from among persons who are fully qualified and trained in their duties irrespective of their caste..On the other hand, intervenors in the matter who opposed the petitions argued that the notification was issued on the basis of judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court that held that the Tranvancore Devaswom Board could not deviate from existing guidelines unless a new statute is enacted in that regard. .The High Court ultimately dismissed the petitions finding that they lacked proper pleadings.However, it clarified that the contentions raised on the basis of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India are left open to be agitated in case the Supreme Court's position on the same changes in its 9-judge Sabarimala case relating to entry of women inside the Ayyappa temple."In the absence of proper pleadings in the statement of facts and grounds on the above aspects, with reference to the provisions under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that it is not necessary to keep these writ petitions pending, awaiting the decision of the larger bench of the apex court in Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion In-Re 9 J [(2020) 3 SCC 52]. We make it clear that the arguments advanced by both sides on the above aspect are left open to be raised in an appropriate proceedings, at appropriate stage," the Court said..The Court also rejected the contention that the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board would amount to untouchability."Therefore, we find absolutely no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14136 of 2021 that the condition stipulated in clause 1 of the notification issued by the Devaswom Commissioner, that the applicant for appointment as Melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom shall be a ‘Malayali Brahmin’ would amount to untouchability abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution of India," the judgment said. .[Read Judgment]