Such Discrimination Frowned Upon By Legislature: Petitioners To Kerala High Court On Decision Restricting Sabarimala ‘Melshanti‘ Post To Malayala Brahmins

The Kerala High Court in its Special sitting on Saturday continued its hearing on the batch of petitions challenging the Travancore Devaswom Board notification inviting applications only from Malayala Bhramins for appointment as Melshanthi (chief priest) at Sabarimala-Malikappuram Temples.

The matter is being heard by the Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar.

The notifications of the Travancore Dewaswom Board were challenged on the ground that the same is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 (1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

When the matter was taken up on Saturday, Advocate B.G. Haridranath, appearing for one of the petitioners submitted that the constitution does not allow to discriminate based on birth or caste or creed. The counsel submitted that the cause of action for the current petition is different from the 2016 and 2020 petitions as they were challenging different rejection orders.

While arguing that allowing such discrimination would amount to allowing the practice of untouchability, the counsel referred to the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. It is an act derived from Article 17 of the Constitution of India and prescribes punishment for the preaching and practice of Untouchability for the enforcement of any disability arising therefrom and for matters connected therewith.

The counsel made specific reference to Section 3 of the Act to illustrate that the discrimination between persons for performance of religious services is frowned upon by the legislature. Section 3 states that the discriminating persons for worshipping or offering prayers or performing religious services in a place of public worship would amount to untouchability. The counsel averred that the intention of the Act was to eradicate the barricade of caste and creed. 

The Government Pleader in his arguments cited specific examples of Chottanikara, Ettumanoor temples where the process of choosing priests is also selective.

The counsel representing Advocate J Sai Deepak, who is appearing for the People for Dharma, sought for an adjournment as he wanted to appear in person for the hearing.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on 25.02.2023 at 10.15 am in a special sitting.

Case Title: Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary and Connected Cases