Appointment of temple priest from particular caste, lineage not essential religious practice: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has ruled that no one can insist that the appointment of santhis (temple priests) can only be from a particular caste or lineage, and that such caste or lineage-based appointment does not constitute an essential religious practice to confer it any protection under the Constitution of India [Akhila Kerala Thantri Samajam & anr v State of Kerala & ors]..A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice KV Jayakumar made the observation while upholding a decision by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB) to recognise experience certificates issued by 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' for the recruitment of part-time temple priests..A society named the Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam (Samajam), comprising around 300 traditional Thanthri families in Kerala, which imparted training in temple rituals to younger generations of priests, had filed a petition challenging such recruitment of temple priests through the Thanthra Vidyalayas.Its president, Easanan Namboodiripad, also joined the society in filing a petition before the High Court in the matter.In focus was Qualification No 2(ii) under Rule 6(1)(b) of the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers' and Servants' Service Rules, 2022. The said rule and related notifications were framed under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015. Under the said rule, one of the criteria to be eligible for being appointed a part-time temple priest was, "A certificate in Santhi Course from any Thantic Vidya Peedams or any such reputed institutions approved by TDB/KDRB.".The petitioners argued that the TDB and the KDRB did not have any authority to prescribe such qualifications for the post of 'Santhi' (temple priest).The petitioners argued that the KDRB and TDB had arbitrarily recognised certain 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' as qualified to issue experience certificates, without any authority to do so, and despite such vidyalayas lacking proper Thanthric education.They contended that such acts diluted traditional Thanthric education and bypassed the long-standing practice of certification by temple Thanthris.They asserted that the appointment of Santhis in accordance with the religious texts and authorities, such as the Agamas and Thanthrasamuchayam, constitutes an essential religious practice..The Bench, however, observed that in the 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was already held that the appointment of Archakas (temple priests) was, essentially, a secular function that is performed by a trustee. The top court had held that an Archaka, once appointed, performs sacred functions, but the act of appointing him is carried out by a secular authority (the trustee). Relying on this, and related caselaws, the High Court held,"The contention of the petitioners that the appointment of Santhis shall be made in accordance with the religious texts and authorities, such as the Agamas and Tantrasamuchayam, as it constitutes an essential religious practice, cannot be accepted.".During the course of hearings, the respondent authorities also argued that the petitioners' aim was to perpetuate hereditary privilege and case-based recruitment of temple priests, particularly since the Samajam consisted of members only from the Brahmin community. Membership was restricted to those belonging to the Thanthri families who have practiced Thanthric Pooja in temples for at least seven generations, the respondents argued. Addressing such concerns, the Court made it clear that caste or lineage-based recruitment of temple priests does not have any constitutional protection as an essential religious practice. "To insist that a person must belong to a particular caste or lineage to be eligible for appointment cannot, in our considered view, be construed as an insistence upon an essential religious practice, rite, or mode of worship. No factual or legal foundation has been established to justify such a claim in the present case. The contention that individuals unconnected with spiritual functions are being considered for such posts and that this infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India is untenable," the Court's October 22 ruling said. It added that no custom or usage, even if traceable to pre-constitutional times, can be recognized as a source of law if it is found to violate human rights, dignity, or the constitutional principles of social equality."Any custom or practice that is oppressive, pernicious, contrary to public policy, or in derogation of the law of the land cannot receive recognition or protection from courts exercising jurisdiction under the Constitution," it said. .The Court also noted that the Thantra Vidyalaya system for certifying candidates as fit for appointment as temple priests appeared to be a thorough process. "Students who successfully complete the course are also subjected to initiation ceremonies, signifying their preparedness to undertake temple duties. Moreover, even among such qualified candidates, the final selection is made strictly on merit by a duly constituted Committee which, apart from learned scholars, includes a reputed Thanthri. The competence, merit, and eligibility of each candidate to perform religious rites and observances are thus tested once again before appointment," it said. The Court further found that the rules framed by the TDB and KDRB for appointing a temple priest through such a method were issued after inviting objections, in compliance with procedural safeguards.It rejected the Samajam's claim of being qualified as a religious denomination under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution as well, noting that it failed to establish a distinct common faith or organisational structure to claim such a status. The Court concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it. .Advocate KR Raj Kumar appeared for the petitioners.Standing counsel G Biju represented the Travancore Devaswom Board.Standing counsel VV Nandagopal represented the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board..[Read Judgment]