Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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

Latest Legal News