The Kerala High Court has held that there is no essential religious practice mandating that a temple priest must belong to a particular caste or lineage. The ruling came while dismissing a writ petition by the Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam, which challenged the accreditation of “Thanthra Vidyalayas” and the qualifications prescribed for appointment of part-time priests (shanthis) in temples administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB).
The petitioners contended that historic practice required priests (thanthris) to come from specific families and lineages, certified under traditional systems, and argued that the recent rules diluting this hereditary requirement violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. They also claimed that the Devaswom Rules and KDRB notifications were unconstitutional and bypassed stakeholder consultation.
The Court, however, observed that the recruitment boards had established a rigorous institutional framework: recognised Thanthra Vidyalayas provide courses (one to five years) covering Vedic texts, rituals, religious observances and modes of worship under learned thanthris. On successful completion, students undergo an initiation ceremony and later testify before a selection committee (including a reputed thanthri) based on merit. Given this system, the Court held that insisting on caste or lineage as a qualification could not be seen as an essential religious practice.
The bench found that the statutory rules empowering the KDRB and the Devaswom Board to prescribe qualifications for priests were valid, including the power to recognise institutions and determine eligibility criteria. The Court rejected the argument that the society (AKTS) had a locus under Article 26 as a religious denomination, finding no evidence of it being a denomination with peculiar religious tenets.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that caste-based or lineage-based restrictions on priest appointments do not qualify as “essential religious practices” protected under the Constitution. The decision reinforces the principle that qualifications for temple service may be prescribed by competent authority, and recruitment criteria based on training, merit and competence are constitutionally valid so long as they do not contravene essential tenets of the faith.
The judgment thus advances the view that although religious institutions may follow rituals and traditional practices, any requirement of caste or lineage for temple-priest appointments must stand the test of being essential to religion. If not, such requirements are subject to constitutional scrutiny and may be set aside.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.