N. Adithayan vs The Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors

Author: Sneha Rani

Edited by: Sankalp Vashistha

Abstract

This paper involves an analysis of the case of N. Adithayan v The Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors regarding the controversy over the appointment of a non-Brahmin priest (Santhikaran) at the Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple in Kerala as worked out by the Supreme Court of India. A case about the appointment was filed by the petitioner, N. Adithayan on the grounds of oppression of Traditional customs and droits of Malayala Brahmins. Thus, the Court’s decision relied upon the constitutional provisions’ interpretation, especially on articles 14, 15, 16, 25, and 26, which concern equality, nondiscrimination, and religious liberties. The Court supported the appointment, stressing the aspect of the order rather than the caste, and underlined the need for augmentation of religious rites with time along with principles of the Constitution of India. This important case confirms the courts’ function in preventing the abuse of religion to infringe on equal rights for women and the Constitution’s provision on non-discriminatory measures.

Keywords: The Constitution, Sacred Rite, Discrimination on the Grounds of Caste, Employment and Promotion, Gender Equity, Law Commission of India and Supreme Court of India

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

 It rose from the designation of a beneficiary of Santhikaran at the Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple in Kerala, which was being served by a non-Brahmin person. One man, N. Adithayan, a Malayala Brahmin in particular, vehemently rejected this appointment because this decision violated customs and the appropriate rights of his community. In this regard, the Supreme Court was faced with the challenge of upholding the free practice of religious rights in the face of the constitutional legal provisions on equal rights and non-discrimination. The Court also considered other previous decisions {conducted a review of the case} and recommendations of different committees so that the Court’s final decision would be just.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. i) Procedural Background of the Case:

• Initiation of the Case:

 The legal processes in this regard began with the appellant N. Adithayan filing Civil Appeal No. 6965 of 1996. This case was a legal battle being taken to the Supreme Court of India to challenge the conflicting problem concerning the employment of a Santhikaran, hailed from the non-Brahmin upper cast, for the position ofSanthikaran or temple priest, a position usually given to the Brahmans, at the Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple, in Kerala. This appeal was filed to overturn the judgment given by the subordinate courts and the case’s goal was to establish that based on tradition only priests born in the Brahmin caste should be allowed to conduct temple rituals in this particular temple.

• Bench Assignment:

 The was given to a bench of Supreme Court Justices S. Rajendra Babu and Doraiswamy Raju. This bench was supposed to deal with numerous constitutional, social, and religious aspects of the appellant presented before it. The judicial review was believed to involve the exploration of whether the non-Brahmin appointment infringed on religious practices and principles set down in the constitution that deals with matters of religion and equality.

1. ii) Factual Background of the Case:

The petitioner, N. Adithayan claimed that the temple authorities and the devotees always followed the tradition and hence appointing a non-Brahmin Santhikaran was a blatant infringement of the traditions being followed in the temple. He claimed that the untold tradition and law stated that only the Malyala Brahmins are allowed to perform the Pooja and rituals of the temples of Kerala. Adithayan’s argument regarding this claim was based because such a deviation detracted from the religious and historical significance largely attributed to temple practices.

• Role of the Travancore Devaswom Board:

 The temple in question is run by the Travancore Devaswom Board which was legalized through the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, of 1950. The Board also entails various responsibilities of administration and management of several temples across the region to conserve cultural practices. In this case, the Board served as an important institution since it was responsible for the appointment and selection of the Santhikaran function and justified the decision to appoint an employee who was not a Brahmin regardless of the case status but competence.

• Appointment Procedure:

 The controversy began when a Santhikaran’s place became vacant after an allegation of poor performance and misconduct by a temporarily appointed Shri K. K. Mohanan Poti. Following the norms set by the Travancore Devaswom Board, it advertised for the post. Out of the applicants, a non-Brahmin at the 31 positions on the selection list was appointed the Santhikaran. This appointment was protested by Adithayan on the basis that it was forbidden by tradition according to which only those of the Brahmin caste could be appointed to such a position

• Opposition and Legal Challenge:

 Santhikaran, a non-Brahmin, was appointed and such changes caused protests by traditionalists, the matter went to a civil court. For their right to religious freedom, worship and to attend to their religious affairs as and when they wanted, Adithayan and several other devotees moved the Kerala High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus for the removal of the Appellant’s appointment. The antithesis was about the fact that the appointment violates the legal rule that only those belonging to the Malayala Brahmin community could conduct the poojas in the temple. Provisional orders were passed, and people were appointed due to which the legal struggle was still going on to wrestle with the fact underlying the resonance of the caste system, particularly the criterion of reservation for SCs/STs for the performance of temple rituals.

Legal Issues Raised

1. Protection of Religious Customs vs. Constitutional Mandates:

 This case created a big legal question as to whether one has to uphold cultural practices inherent in religious practices or the Constitution of a country. More particularly, the question was whether the practice of exclusive reservation of the function of appointing the Santhikaran of the temples under the Appendices ‘A’ and ‘B’ as hereditarily professional as the persons of the Brahmin caste should be allowed given the modern constitutional provisions which do not allow discrimination on the ground of caste. This matter boils down to asking whether the customs and traditions that prefer the appointment of Brahmins to the priesthood are constitutional and do not contradict the provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The quintessential issue, therefore, is whether sustaining such traditions violates rights enshrined in the aforementioned articles that are aimed at eradicating all forms of discrimination and bringing about equality for all people, citizens or not.

2. Qualifications and Merit vs. Caste-Based Appointment:

 The other legal concern raised in the case is on the categorization of the temple priests where the court has to decide whether the vocation should be based on merit, training, or descent. The respondents elaborated that appointments should be based on merit, namely, knowledge of mantras, Tantras, and other requisite Vedic texts along with experience in recognized institutions. Instead, they argued that the introduction of such a system would help in ensuring that the religious duties are well done without violating the constitution of the country. This issue challenges the matrimonial standing of caste as the chief qualifier for religious office and calls for competency cum training selection as opposed to hereditary or caste selection.

 Petitioner / Appellant’s Arguments

1. Preservation of Religious Customs:

 The petitioner submitted that the Malasa–Malayala restriction to Santhikaran is a practice in religion that should be allowed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. They claimed that it was a part of their religion’s culture, in which it is crucial to uphold the purity of the temple and appropriate behaviour during rituals. Thus, according to the petitioner, each of the mentioned customs plays some historical and cultural role that does not have to agree with modern legal norms.

2. Violation of Constitutional Rights:

 In the view of the petitioner, the violation of the constitution is occasioned by the appointment of a non-Brahmin as a Santhikaran since that affects their right to religious administration by the custom. They relied on Article 26 providing religious denominations their right to self-government in religious matters. The petitioner argued that any move that alters this observation diminishes religious harmony and infringes on the petitioner’s right to self-governance in religion and the preservation of their culture.

3. Support from Section 31 of the 1950 Act:

 The petitioner relied on Section 31 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 as providing for continuing the practice as existed in the temples as per the traditions. This section was used as legal support for their argument that the practice of appointment of Santhikaran should also have a precedent of following customs, thus justifying their request to limit priesthood to only the Malayala Brahmins.

4. Relevant Precedents:

To support their argument, the petitioner relied on several judicious of the Apex court which endorses the protection of cultural and or esoteric practices within religious organizations. These precedents were employed to assert that the other courts have generally respected and maintained religious principles, and therefore, the custom being in question in the case should also be protected. The petitioner wanted to be a Santhikaran and was convinced that these judicial decisions would justify non-Brahmin’s appointment as Santhikaran.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Lack of Proven Custom:

The respondents submitted and argued that the petitioner has not been able to provide concrete historical evidence that since the very inception of the appointments of the Santhikaran only Malayala Brahmins could be appointed. The others invented a pretext stating that clear proof was omitted to show that this practice was regularly being upheld without it being interrupted. According to the respondents, in the absence of such evidence, it is impossible to affirm such a claim on the existence of an exclusive custom.

2. Constitutional Provisions Against Discrimination:

 The respondents, based on the constitutional provisions provided, opined that Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India barred caste discrimination and provided equal rights to all citizens. They argued that it is crucial to apply these articles in the proceedings and that any tradition that negates these principles, cannot be justified before the law. The respondents pointed out that since the Constitution enshrines provisions on equality and non-discrimination the discriminator’s religion cannot prevail.

3. Precedents Supporting Non-Discrimination:

 Some of the judicial decisions quoted by the respondents that still call for religious practices to observe the principles of the Constitution dealing with non–non-discrimination and equality include the following. These examples reveal that the courts had and could decide in favour of the eradication of discrimination even in the religious sphere. According to the respondents, the precedents that were mentioned supported their view that the appointment of Santhikarans should not be a caste-based one but a merit-based one.

JUDGEMENT

1. Ratio Decidendi:

In the case of a non-Brahmin Santhikaran appointment, the Supreme Court also ruled that the act did not transgress the constitution’s guidelines. The Court underlined that one should be absolved with qualification and training and not the caste system be the deciding factor for being chosen for a religious position. 

 As the Court upheld the claims, it stressed the need for reconciling religious freedoms with the constitutional provisions on equal rights and anti-discrimination on the note that tradition has to be transformed to meet the new constitutional rationality.

1. Guidelines:
2. Appointment Based on Merit:

 The Court thus ordered that the Travancore Devaswom Board continue to make appointments reflected by the qualification and training of the candidates and not the caste the candidate belongs to or the deity the person worships.

2. Alignment with Constitutional Values:

 The Court stressed that religious organizations’ activities should conform to the constitutional provisions on equality and non-discrimination.

1. Obiter Dicta:

 The Court also pointed at a possibility for the subject customs and traditions to evolve, which has to do with the nature of religious practices in the context of constitutional values Adjusting to societal change.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

 The judgment in N. Adithayan vs The Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors is significant for several reasons:The judgment in N. Adithayan vs The Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors is significant for several reasons Such as 

1. Balancing Tradition and Constitution:

 The Supreme Court in Bhopal’s decision also underlines the requirement to reconcile some orthodox custom that was a part of religion in the contemporary constitution guarding against discrimination based on caste.

It emphasises more on Qualificationsthus conveying the message of the need for qualifications and training rather than caste for one to be appointed for a religious post. The judgment is alive to the fact that religion is not a steady enterprise and needs to change to conform to the Constitution’s principles of fairness and non-discrimination.This case acts as a precedent for checking the walls that may have been built around religion and preventing it from functioning within the constitution of the country to foster diversity and equality. This decision further establishes the court’s adherence to the constitutional protection of the rights of every citizen through the recognition of the categorization of caste while upholding the constitutional recognition of religious principles on religious practices.