Thread by @barandbench

Kerala High Court is holding a special sitting today to hear a batch of pleas challenging the caste requirement mandated by a notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board for the post of Melshanthi (High Preist) of the Sabarimala Temple.
barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

The Travancore Devaswom Board, through a notification dated May 27, 2021, had called for applications to the post of Santhikkaran at Sabarimala Dharmasastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, from anmong Malayala Brahmin community members alone.

#sabarimala

A division bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar will be considering the matter.
#sabarimala

The petitioners have challenged the notification on the ground that it is in total disregard to Supreme Court judgments on the point and Articles 14, 15, 16, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

In a first, the Kerala High Court is live streaming proceedings.

This is the second half of the special sitting of the Division Bench of Justices Anil K Narendran, PG Ajithkumar to hear pleas challenging the restriction of Sabarimala Melshanthi (head priest) to Malayala Brahmins

You can watch this first ever live streamed proceedings of the Kerala High Court here :

In the first half of today's hearing, advocate BG Harindranath, appearing for the petitioners, argued on the recruitment rules and the statutes governing recruitment to temples of the travancore Devaswom board

Now, a senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, is arguing on the constitutionality of the restriction of recruitment to Melshanthi to Malayala Brahmins alone

Sr. Counsel : Constitution lays out certain rights and equality that conflict with this criterion

Sr. Counsel : more than the principal of equality, I would argue that the core issue here is of untouchability which by virtue of Article 17 is a constitutional crime. It is the belief that some people are born pure and others are born impure

Sr. Counsel : the word caste comes from a Portuguese word meaning separating the pure and impure. So it is very apt. ... When you say Brahmin, you are saying it is a group that is pure by birth.

Sr. Counsel : the exclusion of all others except Malayala Brahmins comes from the belief that all others are impure. The question is whether such a rule can be upheld at the cost of abrogating the Constitution of India

Sr. Counsel : the petitioners are fully qualified to be melshanthis but they are not allowed to be considered for the post at Sabarimala. This is based on the belief that they are impure. Can we uphold such a belief ?

Sr. Counsel : whatever the details of administrative law we have been looking at, we cannot ignore the constitutional belief that all human beings are born equal.

Sr. Counsel : History will remember whether this Court abrogated the Constitution on Article 17 or whether it upheld the belief that all humans are born equal.

Sr. Counsel : we are attacking the ideology that some human beings are pure and others are impure. The practice of it has been criminalised but it is the ideology we are attacking now

#Sabarimala #Brahmins

Sr. Counsel : our judiciary has evolved mechanisms to protect and balance constitutional values and rights along with the right to freely practice and profess religion

Sr. Counsel refers to the Sabarimala judgement of the Supreme Court .

Sr. Counsel: It has been held that Sabarimala is not a denominational temple

Sr. Counsel : article 25 only protects essential religious practices. Right to worship is equally part of the right to enter temples without discrimination

Sr. Counsel : the judgement in N. Adithayan vs The Travancore Devaswom Board applies to all Hindu temples. On what basis is the Devaswom board saying this doesn't apply to them unless they are somehow a court higher than the supreme court of india

Sr. Counsel : the claim that appointing Malayala brahmins is a long standing tradition is nothing but a tall claim at this point

Sr. Counsel : of course there are legitimate grounds on which it can be said that only persons from a particular section can be appointed as a priest... That is about qualification, experience as per traditions so deity is touched properly. Not about the purity of the person

Sr. Counsel : the law declared by SC is clear. It is unclear why we are even here. SC has declared that there cannot be a caste based but only a training based criteria. The matter is res judicata

Sr. Counsel refers to Seshammal & Ors, Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu

Sr. Counsel : any proof of the existence of caste based restriction pre constitution cannot be used as a source of law to claim any rights that violate human rights, social equality, etc. No tradition that is pernicious can be upheld by a court of law.

Sr. Counsel : I believe this Court is bound by Adhithayan case in which the Supreme court affirmed the decision of the full bench of this high court that was authored by Justice KT Thomas and fully endorsed by the Supreme Court

Sr. Counsel : the jurisprudence that has evolved tries to retain essential practices in religion but eliminate negative practices like this.

Sr. Counsel : Sabarimala temple is not above the law. Sabarimala temple cannot practice untouchability because restricting Melshanthi to Malayala Brahmins is just that, a practice of untouchability

#sabarimala #Brahmins

Sr. Counsel : Sabarimala is a temple where people of all castes and creeds go, so then why this restriction. We must rid Sabarimala temple of this practice of untouchability

Sr. Counsel : I could move a contempt of court case against the travancore Devaswom board because they are clearly violating the points of law settled by the top court in several cases .

Sr. Counsel concludes arguments

Justice Narendran: last time you came, we were not aware so we adjourned it. Now we knew you had some detailed arguments which is why we are holding this special sitting.

Sr. Counsel : thank you very much Sir. I am much obliged

Devaswom board counsel says the petitioners have to pleas and establish that appointing only Malayala Brahmins is not a practice of Sabarimala temple. He says that HC had approved the criterion previously

Justice Narendran : if shanthi from Cochin Devaswom Board gets appointed to Sabarimala Melshanthi, can he still draw salary from Cochin Devaswom. We want to know the nature of this appointment

Counsel says he will get specific instructions on the point

Counsel says that Adhithyan case was about another temple where it was found that there was no custom of selecting shanthis from only Malayala Brahmins

The hearing will continue on Saturday after next, December 17.

HC : we can finish it that day

(Please read tweets mentioning Sr. Counsel as Dr. Mohan Gopal. Error is regretted.)

End of thread.