N. ADITHAYAN versus THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 03-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
N. ADITHA YAN 
V. 
THE TRA VANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 3, 2002 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India; Articles 14, 15, 17, 25 and 26: 
Appointment of non-Brahmin as Santikaran (Priest) in temples in 
C Kerala--Challenge of-Held, In the absence of any specific custom or usage 
to the contrary, appointment of a properly trained and qualified non-Brahmin 
Santikaran is not violative of the Constitutional provisions-Travancore Cochin 
Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950; Sec.rion 31. 
D 
Hindu law: 
Sources of law-Custom or Usage-Claim of rights-Requirements of-
Held, any custom or usage could not be countenanced as source of law to 
claim any right if it violates' human rights, dignity, social equality, provisions 
in the Constitution or any other law made by Parliament-Constitution of 
E India, 1950-Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. 
The question "11:'..l!ich arose in this appeal was whether the appointment 
of a non-Brahmin Malayala as 'Santika1ran' or 'Poojari' (Priest) of the 
Siva Temple at a vihage in Kera la State, is violative of the Constitutional 
F statutory rights of the appellant, a Malaysia Brahmin. 
It was contended for the appellant that only Namboodri Brahmins 
could perform pooja/daily rituals at temples in Kerala and such a custom 
can not be thrown over in view of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution 
and Section 31 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 
G 1950; and that appointment of Santikaran was not a secular aspect and it 
has been dealt with by the Devaswom Board against the wishes of 
worshippers. 
It was contended for the State that appointment of only Malayala 
Brahmins as Santikarans in Temple would violate Articles 14, 15 and 16 
H of the Constitution of India; and that appointment of a full.v qualified and 
76 
N. ADITHA YAN v. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD 
77 
trained person irrespective of its caste/community would not infringe A 
Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the appellant 
failed to establish any usage, as claimed; and that the rights and claims 
based upon Article 25 have to be viewed in proper and correct perspective 
in the light of Articles I 5, I 6 and I 7 of the Constitution and the provisions B 
contained in the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 
Answering the question in the negative and dismissing the appeal, 
the Court 
HELD: I.I. It is now well settled that Article 25 secures to every C 
person, subject of course to public order, health and morality and other 
. provisions of Part-II I, including Article 17 freedom to entertain and exhibit 
by outward acts as well as propagate and disseminate such religious belief 
according to his judgment and conscience for the.edification of others. The 
right of the State to impose such restrictions as are desired or found D 
necessary on grounds of public order, health and morality is inbuilt in 
Articles 25 and 26 itself. Article 25(2)(b) ensures the right of the State to 
make a law providing for social welfare and reform besides throwing open 
of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and 
sections of Hindus and any such rights of the State or of the communities 
or classes of society were also considered to need due regulation in the E 
process of harmonizing the various rights. The vision of the founding 
fathers of Constitution to liberate the society from blind and ritualistic 
adherence to mere traditional superstitious beliefs sans reason or rational 
basis has found expression in the form of Article 17. The legal position 
that the protection under Articles 25 and 26 extend a guarantee for rituals F 
and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral 
parts of religion and as to what really constitutes an essential part of 
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, 
came to be equally firmly laid down. 193-E-H; 94-AI 
Sastri Yagnapurushadji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya and 
Anr., (196613 SCR 242; Bhuri Nath and Ors. v. Stale of J&K and Ors., (1997( 
2 SCR I 90 and Kai/ash Sonkar v. Smt. Maya Devi, AIR (I 984) SC 600, relied 
on. 
G 
The Commissioner. Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Lakshimindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 119~41SCR1005; Sri 
Venkataramana Dev

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.