Malayali Brahmin condition to be melsanthi of Sabarimala temple not untouchability: Kerala HC

PTI, Feb 28, 2024, 8:46 AM IST

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the eligibility requirement of being a ‘Malayali Brahmin’ for being appointed as melsanthi or head priest of Sabarimala or Malikappuram temples would not amount to untouchability.

The High Court further said that no member of the Hindu community can claim as part of the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 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 (priests) alone could perform”.

The ruling by a bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and P G Ajithkumar came on a batch of petitions challenging a clause in the notification inviting application for appointment of melsanthi in the Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples.

The clause under challenge stipulated that only a Malayali Brahmin was eligible to be appointed to the two posts.

The petitioners were working as melsanthies in various temples, none of which were under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB).

They had contended that a Malayali Brahmin does not have any special privilege for being appointed as melsanthi of Sabarimala temple. The grant of such reservation or privilege in the notification for appointment as melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples to the extent of restricting applications to persons who are Malayali Brahmins was ”arbitrary and illegal”, they had claimed. The petitioner-melsanthies had also argued that inviting applications to the post of melsanthi only from Malayali Brahmins by excluding all other castes from Hindu religion, violates Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ”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,” the petitioners had said.

Rejecting the petitioners’ arguments, the bench said it finds no merit in their contentions that the condition imposed in the clause under challenge would amount to untouchability.

”In the above circumstances, these writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed,” it said.