| CITATION | (2002) 8 SCC 106 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | October 3, 2002 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | N. Adithayan |
| RESPONDENT | Travancore Devaswom Board and Others |
| BENCH | S. Rajendra Babu and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ. |
INTRODUCTION
This Appeal is filed by the Appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. The key contention before the Hon’ble Supreme Court pertains to the legitimacy of appointing an individual who is not of Malayala Brahmin descent as the “Santhikaran” or Poojari (priest) for the Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple located in the Alangad village of Ernakulam district, within the State of Kerala. The issue at hand is whether this appointment contravenes the constitutional and statutory rights held by the Appellant.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Appellant claims to be a Malayala Brahmin and a devotee of the Siva Temple in question. The administration of the said Temple falls under the jurisdiction of the Travancore Devaswom Board.
Mr. K.K. Mohanan Poti, the temporary Santhikaran at the Temple, had his services terminated on August 6, 1993, due to performance and conduct-related complaints. In his place, the Respondent No. 3, who ranked 31st in the list prepared on April 28, 1993, was appointed as a regular Santhikaran, a decision subsequently confirmed by the Devaswom Commissioner on September 20, 1993.
However, the Respondent No. 2 refused to allow the Respondent No. 3 to assume his duties based on a letter purportedly received from the head of the Vazhaperambu Mana, claiming the Respondent No. 3 was a non-Brahmin.
The Devaswom Commissioner maintained that the appointment was valid, citing the absence of any rule prohibiting non-Brahmins from serving as Poojari. No regulation mandated the exclusive appointment of Malayalam Brahmin Poojaris for temple duties. The Respondent No. 3 possessed the requisite qualifications for the position of having received training from distinguished Thanthris and therefore the Commissioner instructed the Respondent No. 2 to permit the Respondent No. 3 to commence his duties, which was executed on October 12, 1993.
On the same date, a Single Bench of the High Court issued an interim order in response to the appellant’s writ petition, halting the appointment, on the grounds that an age-old mandatory custom and tradition dictated that only Malayala Brahmins could be appointed as Poojari (priest) at the temple in question.
Thereafter the matter came to be referred to a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court who upheld the Respondent’s appeal and affirmed the appointment of the Respondent No. 3.
Aggrieved by this Order, the Appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court
ISSUE RAISED
Whether the appointment of an individual who does not belong to the Malayala Brahmin community as the “Santhikaran” or Poojari (priest) of the Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple in Alangad village, Ernakulam district, Kerala State, in contravention of the Appellant’s constitutional and statutory rights?
Whether it is permissible under Article 25(2)(a) for the appointment of Santhikarans for temples to be classified as a “secular activity” within the purview of the Devaswom Boards?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
The Appellant contended that exclusive rights for the performance of poojas and daily rituals within the sanctum sanctorum of Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple are limited to Namboodri Brahmins, in adherence to an established religious tradition. This longstanding custom, safeguarded by Articles 25 and 26, cannot be disregarded. Section 31 of the 1950 Act further substantiates this position.
The Appellant stressed that the mere presence of a longstanding religious practice that entails the selection of a Santhikaran or priest does not automatically render it a secular matter subject to the Devaswom Board’s authority, irrespective of the desires of the worshipers and the rulings of the Temple’s Thanthri.
The Appellant’s counsel relied on precedents such as A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P, Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, and others to argue that the impugned order should be overturned.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
The Respondent argues that the rights and claims derived from Article 25 must be analysed in a comprehensive manner, taking into account the provisions of Articles 15, 16, and 17 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, consideration should be given to the stipulations outlined in the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, which was enacted in accordance with constitutional directives. This legislation not only prevents but also criminalises any form of “untouchability.” Consequently, it is contended that there are no valid grounds for objecting to the ruling of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in this matter.
The Respondent cited precedents like Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan, Bhuri Nath v. State of J&K7 and Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of U.P.
JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon careful consideration, found no grounds for exception to the conclusions reached by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and therefore, did not interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the Appeal is deemed unsuccessful and is hereby dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of N. Adithayan v/s Travancore Devaswom Board and Others, upheld the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court on the central issue of appointment of a non-Malayala Brahmin as the “Santhikaran” or Poojari (priest) for the Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple. The Appellant argued that this appointment violated their constitutional and statutory rights, based on religious tradition. However, the Respondent contended that this appointment aligned with constitutional provisions against “untouchability.” The Supreme Court, after careful examination, found no reason to deviate from the High Court’s conclusions. As a result, the Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded, affirming the appointment of the non-Brahmin Poojari for the temple.
REFERENCE
- SCC Online
This Article is written by Raj Nagre student of New Law College, Mumbai; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments