Sabarimala Temple : Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Melsanthi (Chief Priest) Selection

The Division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish viewed video clippings of the selection process shown by Asianet News as well as CCTV footage from the camera installed in the Temple during the hearing. Taking note of the fact that large number of persons were inside the ‘Sopanam enclosure’ infront of the Sabarimala Temple while drawing lots for the selection of Melsanthi, the Court directed that entry of persons will be limited.

“However, the entry of persons to the ‘Sopanam enclosure’ of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, at the time of draw of the lots shall be confined to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, the President of Travancore Devaswom Board (in his absence, a Member of the Travancore Devaswom Board), the Devaswom Commissioner and the Observer appointed by this Court.”

The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on finding that there were no reasons for interfering with the selection process.

“Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, the submissions made at the Bar and perusing the video clipping and CCTV footage referred to above, we find no reason to interfere with the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, for the year 1199 ME (2023-24), for the aforesaid reasons.”

The petitioner Madhusoodanan Namboothiri, a devotee of Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala Temple filed the writ petition challenging the selection of Mahesh PN (5^th respondent) as Melsanthi for 2023-24. The plea also sought for conducting the selection process of drawing lots afresh for selection of Melsanthi. The allegation was that Sabarimala Special Commissioner folded and rolled the papers containing the name of all candidates using his both palms before putting it into the pot for drawing of lots. It was alleged that the paper containing the name of 5^th respondent was folded but not rolled, and on shaking the pot, the unrolled paper stayed on top of the lots making the it the first choice.

As per earlier directions of the Court, a shortlist was prepared after the interview of the candidates and drawing of lots was conducted before the Santum of the Temple. For drawing lots, a male child below the age of ten years was selected by Senior Raja of Pandalam Royal Family.

The Court viewed video clippings of drawing of lots shown by Asianet News as well as CCTV footage from the camera installed in the Temple for viewing the selection process. It also noted that the writ petition does not contain any specific allegations. The Court took note of the submission made by the Amicus Curiae for the Sabarimala Special Commissioner that the entire instance was only a coincidence that occurred at the time of drawing of lots. The Amicus Curiae also submitted before the Court that the entire allegations were baseless and drawing of lots was conducted in the presence of retired Justice K. Padmanabhan Nair who was appointed by the Court as an Observer, the President, Members, other officials of the Board and also the pilgrims.

Relying upon, Krishnan Namboothiri S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others (2015), the Court highlighted the importance of selection process for selection of Melsanthies and stated that it was different from selection for public employment.

“…..Division Bench of this Court noticed that the selection to the post of Melsanthi cannot be treated as a selection merely for public employment and the canvas in which grounds relating to Articles 14, 16, etc., of the Constitution of India would be etched, will not necessarily be carried, as a whole, into such matters.”

On the above observations, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocates Shabu Sreedharan, Sidharth S.,

Anupam P. Raj, Amal Biju and Ratheesh.V.R.

Counsel for the respondents: Senior Government Pleader S.Rajmohan, Standing Counsel G.Biju, Amicus Curiae N.Raghuraj, Senior Advocate P.Viswanathan, Advocates Ajith Viswanathan, Shibu Joseph, Sayed Mansoor Bafakhy Thangal, Sidharth P. Sasi and Haira

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 645

Case title: Madhusoodanan Namboothiri V State Of Kerala

Case number: WP(C) NO. 35545 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment