The Kerala High Court ruled that temple priest positions cannot be restricted to specific castes or family lineages. Upholding Travancore Devaswom Board rules, the court allowed merit-based hiring through Thanthra Vidyalaya certification.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, October 22, ruled that temple priest positions cannot be restricted to particular castes or family lineages. The court declared that caste-based appointments do not qualify as an essential religious practice under the Constitution. Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and KV Jayakumar delivered this verdict while upholding the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board’s (KDRB) decision to accept certificates from ‘Thanthra Vidyalayas’ for hiring part-time temple priests.
The case arose after the Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam, representing about 300 traditional Thanthri families in Kerala, challenged a rule that allows people who have completed training and received certificates from ‘Thanthra Vidyalayas’ (temple training schools) to be appointed as part-time temple priests. These families have traditionally trained priests in temple rituals. The society’s president, Easanan Namboodiripad, joined the petition.
What is the Issue?
The Samajam challenged the rule because they wanted only people from traditional Thanthri families (who received training through their hereditary family system) to be eligible for temple priest positions. They contested Qualification No 2(ii) under Rule 6(1)(b) of the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service Rules, 2022, which allows certification from Thanthra Vidyalayas for temple priest posts. The Samajam argued that TDB and KDRB had no authority to set these qualifications. They said these boards wrongly approved certain Thanthra Vidyalayas to issue certificates, even though these institutions lacked proper traditional training. This, they claimed, weakened authentic Thanthric education and ignored the established practice of certification by temple Thanthris. They insisted that appointing priests according to religious texts like the Agamas and Thanthrasamuchayam was an essential religious practice.
However, TDB and KDRB pointed out that the Samajam wanted to preserve hereditary privilege and caste-based hiring. The society’s membership was limited to Brahmin families who had practiced Thanthric Pooja for at least seven generations.
What Did The Court Order?
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that appointing temple priests is a secular administrative function, not a religious one. While priests perform sacred duties after appointment, the appointment itself is done by secular authorities.
“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 Thanthrasamuchayam, as it constitutes an essential religious practice, cannot be accepted,” Bar and Bench quoted the court as saying.
The court made clear that no custom, even ancient ones, can be legally recognized if it violates human rights, dignity, or constitutional equality. “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,” Bar and Bench quoted the court as saying.
The court also validated the Thantra Vidyalaya certification process as merit-based. The court noted that TDB and KDRB followed proper procedures, including seeking public objections, before implementing these rules. The court also rejected the Samajam’s claim to be a religious denomination under Article 26, finding they failed to prove a distinct common faith or organizational structure.