Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 22) dismissed a writ petition filed by Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam (AKTS) challenging the accreditation and recognition granted to certain institutions described as 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB).

The petitioners also challenged the notifications issued by KDRB prescribing a certificate from the Tantra Vidya Peetoms recognised by it as one of the qualifications to be appointed as part-time shantis(priests) in various temples.

While dismissing the petitions, the Court held that there was no essential religious practice that a temple priest must be from a particular caste or lineage.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar refused to accept the petitioners' argument that appointment of shanthis(temple priests) ought to be in accordance with traditional practice and cannot be diluted by subordinate legislation.

It observed:

“The materials placed before us further reveal that the TDB and KDRB have established a rigorous institutional mechanism prior to granting accreditatio," the Court said noting that the syllabus prepared by the KDRB encompasses Vedic texts, rituals, religious observances, and modes of worship, and these are imparted by qualified scholars and Thanthris and the courses available extend for a period from one year to five years. Students who successfully complete the course are also subjected to initiation ceremonies, signifying their preparedness to undertake temple duties. The Court also noted that even among such qualified candidates, the final selection is made strictly on merit by a duly constituted Committee which, apart from learned scholars, includes a reputed Thanthri. The competence, merit, and eligibility of each candidate to perform religious rites and observances are thus tested once again before appointment.

In this backdrop, the Court rejected the argument of the petitioners that only persons trained under traditional priests should be appointed as shanthis.

"In such circumstances, to insist that a person must belong to a particular caste or lineage to be eligible for appointment cannot, in our considered view, be construed as an insistence upon an essential religious practice, rite, or mode of worship. No factual or legal foundation has been established to justify such a claim in the present case. The contention that individuals unconnected with spiritual functions are being considered for such posts and that this infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India is untenable.”

Arguments of the petitioners

The petitioners stated that AKTS was a registered society comprising around 300 traditional Thanthri families in Kerala with the objective of fostering cordial relations among thanthris and promoting their welfare. It has also given training to younger generation of priests under the guidance of eminent teachers and collaborated with the Devaswom Boards to give course to priests.

They contended that there is a long-standing practice of certification by a thanthri for a person to be qualified for appointment as a priest. They challenged the notification issued by the KDRB calling for applications to the post of part-time shanthi under TDB as illegal because of certain minimum qualifications prescribed in it.

Further, it was submitted that many students trained by the members of the Society were not allowed to participate in the selection process since the qualifications included a SSLC pass, certificate from Thanthra Vidya Peedam and the accredited institutions by the TDB/KDRB. Thus, the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers' and Servants' Service Rules, 2022 were challenged since it replaced the traditional process for selection of priests.

They contended that the Rules were framed without adequate consultation with stakeholders, including the traditional thanthri community resulting in a situation where many persons are unjustly excluded from being appointed as priests merely because they are not affiliated with the new institutions issuing certificates.

The petitioners argued that the KDRB did not have the expertise to evaluate or approve institutions imparting Thanthric education and such actions would undermine the traditional rigour of the education.

They also stated that KDRB's powers under the Act is limited to the conduct of recruitment and recognition of institutions or curtailment of eligibility is an act of legislative overreach and violates fundamental rights under Articles 26 and 26 of the Constitution.

Respondents' submissions

The 1^st respondent State urged that the hereditary certification of shanthis undermines the democratic aspect of the basic structure of the Constitution as it restricts priesthood to only a few. It was also contended that the qualifications for the part-time priests were decided based on the Special Rules of the TDB.

TDB argued that the petitioners have not suffered any legal injury and they are veiling a public interest litigation as a private interest litigation. The 2022 Rules was framed by the Board as per the power granted under Section 35(2)(e) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act (TCHRI Act) with the concurrence of the government. Moreover, there was a preliminary publication of the same and objections were invited but the petitioners did not come forward at that point of time.

KDBR also filed a counter affidavit and stated that candidates who were trained by thathris were also permitted to apply for the post and appear for the examination. It further submitted that the KDBR constituted an expert committee of reputed thanthris and formulated a one-year syllabus for granting qualification to work as a priest. Moreover, while granting recognition to institutions, it was made clear that these would be reviewed every three years.

KDBR said that it decided to expand the list of approved institution imparting thanthri education since it noticed that there were very few representations from the marginalised communities and since there was no unified system of conducted of such course. Thus, it decided to invite applications from institutions to grant them recognition and after expert review, granted recognition or recommended improvements, as needed.

It also defended the Rules for selection stating that though it does not abolish traditional practices, appointments are made based on merits.

The institutions arrayed as respondents took many contentions, one amongst these was that the petitioner organisation has an exclusive membership of only Brahmins and persons belonging to thanthri families who have practiced pooja for at least seven generations. They also took the defence that the rights under Articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order, morality, health and other fundamental rights.

Findings

The Court considered four questions based on the arguments raised by both sides and felt that there were no merits in the writ petition.

KDRB empowered to determine minimum qualifications

The Court referred to the relevant statutory provisions under the TCHRI Act, the KDRB Act and KDRB Rules, and found that appointment to administrative service in the Devaswom department are to be made by the KDRB in accordance with rules.

It observed:

“It is thus clear that powers have been expressly conferred on the Recruitment Board, under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, to prescribe the qualifications required for various posts in the Devaswom Boards. The Board is competent to determine the educational, technical, and other eligibility criteria for each category of post, thereby ensuring that appointments are made only from among qualified and competent candidates...Additionally, the KDRB is empowered to issue general directions or instructions to the Devaswom Boards in matters incidental or necessary to the conduct of examinations and recruitment. Such directions may pertain to procedural aspects, such as the manner of inviting applications, conducting examinations or interviews, finalizing select lists, and communicating results…The provisions entrusts the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board with wide powers and corresponding responsibilities to uphold transparency, integrity, and uniformity in all Devaswom appointments across the State.”

No infringement of rights under Articles 25 and 26

The Court also found that the petitioner society cannot make a claim on behalf of its members when none of the members have approached the Court stating violation of their fundamental rights under Article 25.

With respect to the right under Article 26, the Court felt that since there was nothing on record to show that the society was a religious denomination having any common or peculiar religious tenets, the same cannot be claimed.

KDRB Acts and Rules are not unconstitutional

The Court observed:

“The petitioners have not been able to establish before us that the Rule-making authority is bereft of any legislative competence or that there is a failure to conform to the statute under which the Rule has been made. We have already held that the claim that the Rules would violate the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution cannot be countenanced.”

Relying on the ratios laid down in various precedents by the Apex Court, the Bench felt that the writ petition lacked merits and dismissed the same.

Case No: WP(C) No. 3994 of 2024

Case Title: Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 668

Counsel for the petitioners: K.R. Rajkumar, Jagadeesh Lakshman, R.K. Rakesh, Nandana Babu T.

Counsel for the respondents: G. Biju – SC -Travancore Devaswom Board, S. Rajmohan - Sr. GP, V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar SC - Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, T.R. Rajesh, Manu Vyasan Peter, C.R. Reghunathan, Hrithwik D. Namboothiri, Bepin Vijayan, John Varghese, V.T. Madhavanunni, V.Vijulal, K.V. Rashmi, K. Mohammed Rafeeq, Sreekanth S. Nair, V. Madhusudhanan, C.P. Udayabhanu, Abesh Alosious, P. Haridas, Lakshmi, Ayisha T.S., Nandana Sasi, R. Balakrishnan, Arjun C.A., B. Harrylal, Amarnath R. Lal, M. Sreebhadran, M.G. Ashokan, Deepa Sreenivasan, Sanuju R., Navaneeth.N.Nath, P.B. Krishnan (Sr.), P.B. Subramanyan, Sabu George, B. Anusree, Christine Mathew, Anil Thomas (T), Rahul Anil, G. Krishnakumar, P. Viswanathan (Sr.), Biju Hariharan, Shijimol M. Mathew, P.C. Shijin, Roshin Mariam Jacob, Prajisha O.K.

Click to Read/Download Judgment