Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Kerala High Court Dismisses Challenge to Head Priest Selection at Sabarimala Temple

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Kerala High Court today dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection of the Melsanthi (Head Priest) for the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24). The petition was dismissed by a bench comprising Honorable Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran and Honorable Mr. Justice G. Girish.

The petitioner, Madhusoodanan Namboothiri, had raised allegations against the selection process, specifically questioning the manner in which the lots were drawn. In their judgment, the Court noted, “Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, the submissions made at the Bar and perusing the video clipping and CCTV footage referred to above, we find no reason to interfere with the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi.”

The Court’s decision was influenced by detailed observations of CCTV footage and news items from ‘Asianet News’ concerning the draw of lots, conducted on October 18, 2023. The footage was scrutinized to ascertain any procedural improprieties. However, the Court found no substantial evidence against the 5th respondent, thereby reinforcing the validity of the selection process.

The selection procedure, a traditional draw of lots, was central to the petitioner’s allegations. The Court acknowledged these concerns but ultimately found them unsubstantiated. The judgment emphasized, “Insofar as the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner is concerned...it was only a coincidence that occurred at the time of the draw of lots on 18.10.2023.”

This ruling is significant, especially considering the revered status of the Melsanthi in the Sabarimala Temple, a major pilgrimage site. The Court’s decision upholds the sanctity and fairness of the traditional selection process, providing reassurance to devotees and stakeholders.

The judgment also referred to the Krishnan Namboothiri S. V. Travancore Devaswom Board case, delineating the unique nature of the selection process for religious positions, which do not strictly fall under the purview of public employment norms.

Advocates representing the petitioner and the respondents, including the State of Kerala and the Travancore Devaswom Board, were present during the proceedings. The judgment also issued specific directions regarding the entry of persons to the ‘Sopanam enclosure’ during the selection process, aiming to ensure transparency and order in future selections.

High Court’s ruling marks a significant affirmation of traditional religious practices and the integrity of the selection process for one of Kerala’s most esteemed religious roles.

Date of Decision: November 9, 2023

MADHUSOODANAN NAMBOOTHIRI  VS STATE OF KERALA

Similar News