N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board

FACTS

The appellant, a worshipper, challenged the appointment of a non-Brahmin, the third respondent, as the regular Santhikaran (priest) of the Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple, Kerala. The Temple's administration vests with the Travancore Devaswom Board. The services of a previous temporary priest were dispensed with, and the third respondent was appointed. His appointment was initially resisted based on a letter citing the long-followed mandatory custom and usage of having only Malayala Brahmins perform poojas. The main grievance in the writ petition was that the appointment of a non-Brahmin violated the alleged right of worshippers to practice and profess their religion in accordance with its tenets, as secured under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case reflected whether the appointment of a person, who is not a Malayala Brahmin, as “Santhikaran” or Poojari (priest) of the Temple in question is violative of the constitutional and statutory rights of the appellant.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• Scope of Articles 25 and 26: This Hon'ble court reiterated that the protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends to rituals, ceremonies, and modes of worship that are integral and essential parts of religion. However, what truly constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by the Courts with reference to the doctrine of that particular religion.

• Caste is Not an Essential Practice: The court upheld the appointment of the non-Brahmin to perform puja and other religious rites in the Shiva temple. It decisively held that the appointment of a priest is essentially a secular function and the requirement for a priest to be of a particular caste (Brahmin) is not an essential religious practice protected by the Constitution.

• Criteria for Appointment: The essential qualification is expertise, not pedigree. The Court emphasized:

  "As long as anyone well versed and properly trained and qualified to perform the pooja in a manner conducive and appropriate to the worship of the particular deity, is appointed as santhikaran dehors his pedigree based on caste, no valid or legally justifiable grievance can be made in a court of law."

• Conclusion: This court upheld the appointment of non-Brahmins as "Santhikaran" or poojari in the Shiva temple, as authorized by the law, furthering the constitutional goal of abolishing distinctions based on caste and creed.

CASE LAWS REFERRED

• Commr., HRE v. Sri LakshmIndira Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt: Emphasized that religious denominations enjoy complete autonomy in deciding what rites and ceremonies are essential according to their religion, in contrast to secular matters.

• Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi: Quoted the constitutional mandate that all distinctions based on caste and creed must be abolished, and man must be recognized by his actions, irrespective of caste.

{pg 1301, 1302, Indian Constitutional Law, MP Jain 8th ed} {pg 259, Constitution of India, VN Shukla 14th ed}