Supreme Court to decide validity of caste barrier for appointment as Sabarimala temple chief priest

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Kerala government to a plea challenging 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 [Sijith TL and Another v. State of Kerala and Others]..On February 27, the Kerala High Court had dismissed a batch of petitions leading to the present appeal before the apex court.A division bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the State of Kerala (through the Devaswom Department), Devaswom Commissioner, the Travancore Devaswom Board.The Court posted the matter for hearing next on October 25. The petitioners, two non-Brahmin priests, have that contended 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 High Court had dismissed the writ petitions primarily on the ground that they lacked proper pleadings. It had rejected the contention that the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board would amount to untouchability.It had said that the right under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution is only a right to enter the temple for worship and does not confer any right to perform services which only Archakas (priests) are entitled to perform."As held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sri Venkataramana 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. 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 High Court had said in its judgment.However, it had 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. .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 pleas before the Court, filed in July 2021 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.The plea said that 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 is 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 is from among persons who are fully qualified and trained in their duties irrespective of their caste..Advocates Dr G Mohan Gopal, Diya Kapur, Siddharth Nath, Asjad Hussain, Anunay Chowdhury, Gahena Gambani, Raghav Kumar and Aditya Ladha, appeared for the appellants..[Read Order]