N. Adithayan v Travancore Devaswom Board (Supreme Court, 2002) — caste is no qualification for the priesthood

It applies the essential-practices test to a claim founded on caste and rejects it, reading Articles 25 and 26 with Article 17 and the equality code. It is the case to cite for the proposition that religious freedom cannot shelter a caste monopoly over a temple office.

The Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple at Alangad in Ernakulam district is administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board, a statutory body under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. When the temporary Santhikaran's services were dispensed with in 1993, the Board appointed as regular Santhikaran a candidate from its list who was not a Malayala Brahmin but had been trained at a Devaswom institution. The appellant, a Malayala Brahmin and a worshipper, contended that only a Malayala Brahmin could perform the pooja at the temple and that the appointment violated his rights under Articles 25 and 26. The Kerala High Court rejected the challenge; he appealed to Rajendra Babu and Doraiswamy Raju JJ.

1. Is there an essential religious practice under Articles 25 and 26 that only a Brahmin, or a Malayala Brahmin, may be the priest of the temple?
2. How does Article 17 bear on such a claim?

The test. Articles 25 and 26 extend "a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion and as to what really constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or practices regarded as parts of religion". Where a temple has been consecrated according to the Agamas, its daily rituals and poojas must be performed as they prescribe; but that governs how worship is done, not the caste of the person doing it.

No caste qualification. The earlier cases, including Seshammal, dealt with hereditary succession, not with "any rights based on caste origin", and cannot be read "as if they lend support to assert or protect any and everything claimed as being part of the religious rituals". Any person who has been initiated, trained and mastered the rituals may acquire the right to perform them. "Consequently, there is no justification to insist that a Brahmin or Malayala Brahmin in this case, alone can perform the rites and rituals in the temple, as part of the rights and freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution and further claim that any deviation would tantamount to violation of any such guarantee under the Constitution. There can be no claim based upon Article 26 so far as the Temple under our consideration is concerned." As long as a person "well versed and properly trained and qualified to perform the pooja in a manner conducive and appropriate to the worship of the particular deity" is appointed, no right is infringed.

Article 17. The Court placed the claim against the founders' vision "to liberate the society from blind and ritualistic adherence to mere traditional superstitious beliefs sans reason or rational basis", which "has found expression in the form of Article 17".

Articles 25 and 26 protect the rituals and modes of worship integral to a religion, as determined by the courts from its doctrines; they do not protect a claim that only members of a particular caste may hold the office of priest. A properly trained and qualified person of any caste may be appointed to perform the pooja, and a contrary claim runs against Article 17.