The Apex Court ultimately repelled the challenge, after adverting to the changes undergone in the social and religious outlook of the Hindu community as well as the fundamental change as a result of the message of social equality and justice proclaimed by the Constitution and the promise made in Article 17 to abolish “untouchability”, observing that as long as the actual worship of the deity is allowed to be performed only by the authorized Poojaris of the temple and not by all devotees permitted to enter the temple, there can be no grievance made.
In Case of VISHNUNARAYANAN and Ors. V. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & DEVASWOM, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 and Ors. Facts States that in the legal arena of Kerala, petitions challenging the caste-based eligibility criteria for the appointment of Melsanthis in temples led to a significant hearing in the high Court, These petitions brought forth disputes with the Travancore Devaswom Board, Devaswom Commissioner, and the State of Kerala. Concurrently, legal battles emerged surrounding the appointment of Melsanthis in Kerala temples, with particular challenges directed at the eligibility criteria restricting applicants to Malayala Brahmins. These cases prompted a broader examination of constitutional principles and religious practices, culminating in a significant hearing on February 27, 2024.
In the legal matter brought before this esteemed court, concerning various petitions and disputes revolving around the appointment of Melsanthis in Kerala temples, a comprehensive judgment has been reached. The court, after careful consideration of the facts presented and the arguments put forth by the parties involved, renders the following judgment.
The court acknowledges the significance of religious practices and denominational rights, respecting the delicate balance between individual religious freedoms and community rights. The petitions raised valid concerns regarding the eligibility criteria for Melsanthis, particularly the restriction to Malayala Brahmins, deemed by the petitioners as arbitrary and violative of constitutional principles.
Upon analysis, the court recognized the evolving nature of temple appointments and the imperative to uphold traditional customs while ensuring transparency and fairness. The involvement of the Apex Court in mediating disputes and emphasizing the authority of religious denominations played a pivotal role in shaping the judgment. The court considered the delicate interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, harmonizing the rights of individuals and denominations in temple access and worship.
The court ruled against caste-based restrictions and upheld the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. It emphasized that temple appointments should not be based on caste or lineage but on knowledge, qualifications, and adherence to established traditions. The judgment clarified that while religious practices are integral, they must align with constitutional principles and ensure access to all, irrespective of caste.
In addressing concerns about the Travancore Devaswom Board’s role, the court affirmed its responsibility for overseeing traditional rites, maintaining religious institutions, and managing funds, while ensuring non-interference in religious affairs. The court acknowledged the importance of Agamas in determining temple practices, differentiating between secular acts and spiritual or religious practices.
The court, in its wisdom, made modifications to the selection committee based on a report, appointed an observer for selection, and directed the Board to modify guidelines for selecting Melsanthis. These interventions were aimed at ensuring a transparent and fair selection process, respecting both tradition and constitutional principles.
In conclusion, this judgment strives to strike a delicate balance between tradition and constitutional principles. It upholds the rights of individuals and denominations while ensuring that religious practices align with the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The court’s decision aims to foster harmony, inclusivity, and transparency in the matter of temple appointments, setting a precedent for the delicate interplay between tradition, religion, and constitutional rights.
“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- Komal Goswami
