Title: MADHUSOODANAN NAMBOOTHIRI vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Citation: WP(C) NO. 35545 OF 2023
Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
Decided on: 9-11-23
Introduction:
In this case, the petitioner, who is a devotee of Lord Ayyappa and associated with the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition challenges the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi (chief priest) of the Sabarimala Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24). The case appears to involve a dispute related to the appointment or selection of the chief priest at the Sabarimala Temple, and the petitioner is seeking legal intervention to challenge and rectify the selection process. The specific grounds on which the petitioner challenges the selection and the details of the Ext.P2 list of candidates are not provided in the brief introduction.
Facts:
In this case, the petitioner, a devotee of Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, has filed a writ petition challenging the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi (chief priest) of the temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24). The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Devaswom Commissioner to conduct the draw of lots for the selection of Melsanthi afresh, based on a specified list of candidates. The court took cognizance of the matter and, on November 1, 2023, viewed video clippings from ‘Asianet News’ regarding the draw of lots conducted in front of the Sanctum Sanctorum of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple on October 18, 2023. The court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board needed time to check if the CCTV footage of the draw of lots was available.
On November 2, 2023, the court viewed CCTV footage from the camera installed in the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. The court directed the learned Standing Counsel to provide a copy of the video to the petitioner’s counsel on WhatsApp. It was observed that the statement of facts in the writ petition lacked specific allegations against the 5th respondent.
On November 3, 2023, the court issued notice on admission to the 5th respondent, and the notice was ordered to be served by a special messenger, returnable by November 7, 2023. On the said date, the 5th respondent entered appearance through counsel.
The court, after hearing arguments from various parties on November 8, 2023, noted that the petitioner argued for a detailed inquiry to determine if any foul play or irregularities occurred during the draw of lots. The petitioner contended that the selection of the 5th respondent was suspicious and should be canceled. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Senior Government Pleader supported the need for a fair and transparent process for drawing lots, considering the upcoming festival. The Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent argued that the writ petition lacked specific allegations against the 5th respondent to vitiate his selection.
The case seems to revolve around allegations of irregularities or impropriety in the draw of lots for selecting the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, and the court is considering the need for a detailed inquiry into these allegations. The petitioner contends that the selection process was suspicious, while the respondents argue for a fair and transparent process.
Court analysis and judgement:
In the case described, the court considered a writ petition challenging the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi (chief priest) of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24). The petitioner raised concerns about the process of drawing lots for the selection and alleged impropriety by the Special Commissioner. The court noted that the paper containing the name of the 5th respondent and the one with the writing ‘Melsanthi’ were folded and rolled by the Special Commissioner with fingers but without using both palms, unlike the procedure followed for other candidates. The court also addressed the issue of returning the paper with the writing ‘Melsanthi’ before putting it in the second pot, explaining it as a standard practice. The court observed that both pots were shaken twice before and after entrusting them to the Melsanthi and Special Commissioner, causing some of the lots to unfold partially. The draw of lots was conducted by a small child considered a representative of the deity in the presence of the Observer appointed by the court, Board officials, and pilgrims.
After considering the pleadings, materials on record, video clippings, and CCTV footage, the court found no reason to interfere with the selection of the 5th respondent. The court rejected the challenge against the selection, even though it acknowledged that the first relief sought in the writ petition was not properly worded. The court also noted the presence of a large number of persons during the draw of lots, emphasizing that entry to the ‘Sopanam enclosure’ during such events should be limited to specific individuals, including the Special Commissioner, President of the Travancore Devaswom Board, Devaswom Commissioner, and the court-appointed Observer.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi, and issued directions regarding the regulation of entry to the ‘Sopanam enclosure’ during the draw of lots.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By: Gauri Joshi
