Malayali Brahmin as Sabarimala temple head priest condition not untouchability, says Kerala HC

Only Malayali Brahmins are allowed to conduct pujas at the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. (Kerala Tourism)

The Kerala High Court, in its ruling on Tuesday, 27 February, addressed the issue of eligibility requirements for the appointment of the melsanthi (head priest) in Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples.

Here’s a summary of the key points from the ruling:

• Eligibility Requirement: The High Court upheld the clause in the notification, which stipulated that only a Malayali Brahmin could be appointed as melsanthi in the two temples. It concluded that this requirement did not amount to untouchability.
• Freedom of Religion: The court clarified that no member of the Hindu community could claim as a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution that a temple must remain open for worship at all hours or that they should personally perform services reserved for priests.

Also Read: Kerala High Court issues directions to Sabarimala temple authorities, police

• Petitioners’ Arguments: The petitioners, who were melsanthies in other temples not under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, challenged the clause, arguing that a Malayali Brahmin did not have special privileges for the position. They contended that the clause violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
• Court’s Decision: The bench rejected the petitioners’ arguments, finding no merit in their contentions. It stated that the condition of being a Malayali Brahmin for the appointment did not constitute untouchability. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petitions.
• Constitutional Objectives: The court emphasized that the exclusive reservation for Malayali Brahmins did not go against the objectives of the Indian Constitution.

In brief, the high court upheld the eligibility requirement of being a Malayali Brahmin for the appointment of melsanthi in Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples, rejecting the petitioners’ arguments that it violated constitutional provisions.

(Disclaimer: South First may have reworked the headline, subheads, and format of this report along with the photos. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)