The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against Kerala High Court's Judgment that held that 'Malayali Brahmin' criteria for appointment as Melsanthies (HeadPriest) of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom would not amount to untouchability abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Delay condoned. Issue notice, returnable on 25.10.2024."

Advocate G. Mohan Gopal appeared for the Petitioner. The matter is listed for hearing on October 25.

Pertinently, on February 27, 2024, the Kerala High Court had upheld the 'Malayali Brahmin' criteria for appointment as melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom.

In the matter, before the High Court it was averred the Travancore Devaswom Board-a statutory body created under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the issuance of Ext.P1 notification by the 2nd respondent-Devaswom Commissioner, invited application to the post of Melsanthi only from Malayali Brahmins, by excluding all other castes from Hindu religion, violates the provisions of the Constitution of India.

It was further averred that the exclusive reservation for Malayali Brahmin in the matter of appointment of Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom is against the objectives of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the petitioner said that keeping Article 17 of the Constitution in the purview such caste-based practice built on superstitions and beliefs that have no rationale or logic was in derogation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India.

However, the Bench referred to Sri Venkataramana Devaru Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore [AIR 1985 SC 255], where the question to be adjudicated upon was as to whether the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed under Article 26(b) of the Constitution of India is subject to, and can be controlled by, a law protected by Article 25(2)(b), throwing open a Hindu public temple to all classes and sections of Hindus. The main point of determination was the validity of Section 3 of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947.

It was noted in the judgment, “…Worshippers lay great store by the rituals and whatever other people, not of the faith, may think about these rituals and ceremonies, they are a part of the Hindu religious faith and cannot be dismissed as either irrational or superstitious…In all these temples in which the images are consecrated, the ‘Agamas’ insist that only the qualified Archaka or Pujari shall step inside the sanctum sanctorum and that too after observing the daily disciplines which are imposed upon him by the ‘Agamas’. As an Archaka he has to touch the image in the course of the worship and it is his sole right and duty to touch it. The touch of anybody else would defile it. Thus, under the ceremonial law pertaining to temples even the question as to who is to enter the Garbhagriha or the sanctum sanctorum and who is not entitled to enter it and who can worship and from which place in the temple are all matters of religion as shown in the above decision of this Court”.

Cause Title: Sijith TL and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [Diary No. 25008/2024]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Dr. G. Mohan Gopal, Diya Kapur, Siddharth Nath (AOR), Asjad Hussain, Anunay Chowdhury, Gahena Gambani, Raghav Kumar, Aditya Ladha

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Surya KantJustice Ujjal BhuyanSabarimalaKerala High Court

Sukriti Mishra