N. ADITHAYAN V. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD(2002) 8 SCC 106

1. N.ADITHAYAN V. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD 

(2002) 8 SCC 106 

 

FACTS

The appellant claims himself to be a Malayala Brahmin by community and a worshipper of the Siva Temple in question. The administration of the Temple vests with Travancore Devaswom Board, a statutory body created under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. One Shri K.K. Mohanan Poti was working as temporary Santhikaran at this Temple, but due to complaints with reference to his performance and conduct, his services were not regularised and came to be dispensed with by an order dated 6-8-1993. In his place, the third respondent, who figured at Rank No. 31 in the list prepared on 28-4-1993, was ordered to be appointed as a regular Santhikaran and the Devaswom Commissioner. The second respondent did not allow him to join in view of a letter said to have been received from the head of the Vazhaperambu Mana for the reason that the third respondent was a non-Brahmin. Though the third respondent was permitted to join by an order passed on the same day, the appointment was stayed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court and one Sreenivasan Poti came to be engaged on duty basis to perform the duties of Santhikaran, pending further orders. 

The main grievance and ground of challenge in the writ petition filed in the High Court was that the appointment of a non-Brahmin Santhikaran for the Temple in question offends and violates the alleged long-followed mandatory custom and usage of having only Malayala Brahmins for such jobs of performing poojas in the temples and this denies the right of the worshippers to practise and profess their religion in accordance with its tenets and manage their religious affairs as secured under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

 

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case reflects whether the the appointment of a person, who is not a Malayala Brahmin, as “Santhikaran” or Poojari (priest) of the Temple in question - Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple at Alangad village in Ernakulam district, Kerala State, is violative of the constitutional and statutory rights of the appellant.

 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. This hon'ble court observed that, "the protection under Articles 25 and 26 extends a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion and as to what really constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or practices regarded as parts of religion".
2. The court upholds the appointment of a non-brahmin to perform puja and other religious rites in a Shiva temple. The person concerned should be one who is well versed in performing all the rites and ceremonies peculiar to the temple concerned. "As long as anyone well versed and properly trained and qualified to perform the pooja in a manner conducive and appropriate to the worship of the particular deity, is appointed as santhikaran dehors his pedigree based on caste, no valid or legally justifiable grievance can be made in a court of law
3. Hence, this court upheld the appointment of non brahmins as “Santhikaran '' or poojari in a Shiva temple in the state of Kerala which was authorised by the law.

 

CASE LAWS REFERRED.

1. In Commr., HRE v. Sri LakshmIndira Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, it was observed that Article 25 secures to every person, subject to public order, health and morality, a freedom not only to entertain such religious belief, as may be approved of by his judgement and conscience but also to exhibit his belief in such outward acts as he thinks proper and to propagate or disseminate his ideas for the edification of others. It was also observed that what is protected is the propagation of belief, no matter whether the propagation takes place in a church or monastery or in a temple or parlour meeting. While elaborating the meaning of the words, “its own affairs in matters of religion” in Article 26(b) it has been observed that in contrast to secular matters relating to administration of its property the religious denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters.
2. In Shastri Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya, it was quoted that “Hinduism is far more than a mere form of theism resting on Brahmanism” 
3. In Kailash Sonkar v. Maya Devi, it was observed that all distinctions based on caste and creed must be abolished and man must be known and recognized by his actions, irrespective of the caste to which he may on account of his birth belong, a positive step has been taken to achieve this in the Constitution and, in our view, the message conveyed thereby got engrafted in the form of Articles 14 to 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and paved the way for the enactment of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.