MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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