By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Petition Challenging Kerala HC’s Ruling On Melshanthis Appointment At Sabarimala And Malikappuram Temple
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > Documentation > Supreme Court Issues Notice On Petition Challenging Kerala HC’s Ruling On Melshanthis Appointment At Sabarimala And Malikappuram Temple
Documentation

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Petition Challenging Kerala HC’s Ruling On Melshanthis Appointment At Sabarimala And Malikappuram Temple

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: February 15, 2025 8:51 pm
Amna Kabeer
10 months ago
Share
Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court
SHARE

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Petition

On Friday, August 9, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding a petition contesting the Kerala High Court’s decision, which upheld a requirement that only Malayali Brahmins are eligible for appointment as Melshanthis (Chief Priests) of the Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples.

Contents
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PetitionConclusion 

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued the notice to the State of Kerala, represented by the Devaswom Department, the Devaswom Commissioner, and the Travancore Devaswom Board. This development followed a petition filed by two non-Brahmin priests, represented by Dr. Mohan Gopal.

The petitioners argued that they were otherwise fully qualified to be appointed as Melshanthis. They contended the condition imposed by the Devaswom Commissioner. A State official restricting the appointment to Malayali Brahmins amounts to caste-based discrimination. Thereby violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution.

In its earlier ruling, the Kerala High Court bench, consisted of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar. They upheld the condition. The court stated that the right to enter a temple for worship is not absolute or unlimited. It rejected the petitioners’ argument that the condition was equivalent to “untouchability,” which is prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.

Conclusion 

The High Court emphasised that no member of the Hindu community could claim a constitutional right. It is under Article 25(2)(b) to have a temple open at all hours. To perform rituals exclusively reserved for the archakas (priests). Therefore, the court found no merit in the petitioners’ contention that the notification’s stipulation amounted to untouchability.

The High Court did not address the broader issues concerning the relationship between fundamental rights and religious rights. They were noting that these matters lacked proper pleadings in the petitions. They are currently pending adjudication in a related Sabarimala reference case before the Supreme Court.

You Might Also Like

How To Get A Duplicate Copy Of A Property Document In India

How To Apply For A Caste Certificate In India

How To Apply For A Disability Certificate In India?

How To File A Case Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act?

What Is The Mental Health Care Act, 2017?

Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Supreme Court Clarifies: Overtaking Alone Doesn't Constitute Rash Or Negligent Driving Supreme Court Clarifies: Overtaking Alone Doesn’t Constitute Rash Or Negligent Driving
Next Article NEET Supreme Court Case Supreme Court Dismisses Petition To Postpone NEET-PG 2024 Exam, Declines Request For Single-Batch Format
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging FIRs Against Gangster Lawrence Bishnoi Over Prison Interview
News

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging FIRs Against Gangster Lawrence Bishnoi Over Prison Interview

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
10 months ago
Delhi High Court Responds to Plea Against Protests in Court Premises Over Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest
Delay in Reporting POCSO Offence Not a Crime: Delhi HC
Non-Consensual Unnatural Sex by Husband Punishable under Section 377 IPC: Allahabad HC
Article 143 of the Constitution: The President’s Power to Consult the Supreme Court
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Prisoner Freed Despite Missing File By Calcutta High Court

Punishment and Legal Action Under Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women Act

Media & Entertainment Law: Career Insights And Opportunities

What Content Is Banned and What’s Allowed Under the Indecent Representation of Women Act? (Sections 3, 4 and 5)

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?