Kerala High Court: To Insist That A Person Must Belong To Particular Caste Or Lineage For Appointment As Priest Not Essential Religious Practice

The Kerala High Court held that, insisting that a person must belong to a particular caste or lineage to be eligible for appointment as a temple priest, cannot be construed as an insistence upon an essential religious practice, rite, or mode of worship.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed, “The competence, merit, and eligibility of each candidate to perform religious rites and observances are thus tested once again before appointment. In such circumstances, 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 Bench reiterated 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, the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Article 17 of the Constitution, dignity of individual, 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 added.

Advocate K.R. Rajkumar represented the Petitioners, while SC G. Biju, Sr. GP S. Rajmohan, SC V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, Senior Advocates P.B. Krishnan, and P. Viswanathan represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Writ Petition challenged the Qualification No. 2(ii) of Rule 6(1)(b) of the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service Rules, 2022. The Petitioners i.e., society and its President were aggrieved by the accreditation and recognition granted to certain institutions described as Thanthra Vidyalayas by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB).

Their contention was that KDRB lacks both the requisite expertise and the statutory authority to evaluate, recognise, or approve institutions engaged in imparting Thanthric education. They claimed that such actions are arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and have the effect of undermining the sanctity, authenticity, and traditional rigour associated with Thanthric education in Kerala’s temple traditions.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “As held in Indian Young Lawyers (supra), the first and the most important condition for a religious denomination, i.e., the collection of individuals ought to have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being. There is nothing on record to show that the members of the petitioner Society have any common religious tenets peculiar to themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, other than those which are common to the Hindu religion. Therefore, the petitioners are merely Hindus and do not constitute a separate religious denomination.”

The Court said that for a religious denomination, there must be new methodology provided for a religion and mere observance of certain practices, even though from a long time, does not make it a distinct religion on that account.

“The next question is whether the Act and the Rules are unconstitutional for the grounds raised in the writ petition. It is by now settled beyond any doubt that the court, considering the validity of a subordinate legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act, and also the area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then decide whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the parent statute”, it observed.

The Court further reiterated that where a rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute, then, of course, the task of the Court is simple and easy, but where the contention is that the inconsistency or non-conformity of the rule is not with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and scheme of the parent Act, the Court should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity

“The petitioners have not been able to establish before us that the Rule-making authority is bereft of any legislative competence or that there is a failure to conform to the statute under which the Rule has been made. We have already held that the claim that the Rules would violate the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution cannot be countenanced”, it remarked.

The Court disagreed with the contention that the appointment of Shanthis in accordance with the religious texts and authorities, such as the Agamas and Thanthrasamuchayam constitutes an essential religious practice, which cannot be interfered with or diluted through the enactment of subordinate legislation or executive regulation.

“In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that 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”, it held.

The Court also noted that the qualification prescribed for the post of Part-Time Santhi has been formulated by the TDB after obtaining expert inputs from the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB), and this prescription has also received Government approval.

“The materials placed before us further reveal that the TDB and KDRB have established a rigorous institutional mechanism prior to granting accreditation. The second petitioner himself participated in the said process. The syllabus prepared by the KDRB encompasses Vedic texts, rituals, religious observances, and modes of worship, and these are imparted by qualified scholars and Thanthris and the courses available extend for a period from one year to five years”, it added.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court said that the students who successfully complete the course are also subjected to initiation ceremonies, signifying their preparedness to undertake temple duties and 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 observations and principles of law enunciated in the aforementioned binding precedents apply in toto to the facts of the present case. The ratio laid down therein squarely governs the issues that arise for consideration in this petition. … In light of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that none of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners merit acceptance”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam & Anr. v. The State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:78220)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates K.R. Rajkumar, Jagadeesh Lakshman, R.K. Rakesh, and Nandana Babu T.

Respondents: SC G. Biju, Sr. GP S. Rajmohan, SC V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, Senior Advocates P.B. Krishnan, P. Viswanathan, Advocates T.R. Rajesh, Manu Vyasan Peter, C.R. Reghunathan, Hrithwik D. Namboothiri, Bepin Vijayan, John Varghese, V.T. Madhavanunni, V. Vijulal, K.V. Rashmi, K. Mohammed Rafeeq, Sreekanth S. Nair, V. Madhusudhanan, C.P. Udayabhanu, Abesh Alosious, P. Haridas, Lakshmi, Ayisha T.S., Nandana Sasi, R. Balakrishnan, Arjun C.A., B. Harrylal, Amarnath R. Lal, M. Sreebhadran, M.G. Ashokan, Deepa Sreenivasan, Sanuju R., Navaneeth N. Nath., .P.B. Subramanyan, Sabu George, B. Anusree, Christine Mathew, Anil Thomas (T), Rahul Anil, G. Krishnakumar, Biju Hariharan, Shijimol M. Mathew, P.C. Shijin, Roshin Mariam Jacob, and Prajisha O.K.

Click here to read/download the Judgment