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
11 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 Apply For A Scholarship For Higher Education

How To File A Human Rights Complaint In India

How To Obtain FSSAI License For Cloud Kitchen?

How To File A Case Under The Essential Commodities Act (ECA)?

The Importance Of The National Pension Scheme

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 Orders Rehabilitation Before Evictions For Haldwani Railway Station Development
News

Supreme Court Orders Rehabilitation Before Evictions For Haldwani Railway Station Development

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
12 months ago
Attempted Offence Under Section 377 IPC Is Punishable Under Section 511 IPC: Kerala HC
Supreme Court Grants Bail To TMC Leader Anubrata Mondal In Cattle Smuggling Case
Supreme Court Upholds Auction Of Joint Property In Chandigarh Partition Dispute
Marital Rape Not Yet Recognized Under Indian law: Madhya Pradesh HC
- 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

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Humayun Merchant In Money Laundering Case

Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Cannot Be Invoked Unless Clear Evidence Of Miscarriage Of Justice: J&K HC

Information Technology Act Of 2000: Key Provisions, Responsibilities, And Amendments

Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, Penalizes Publication of Sexually Explicit Material in Electronic Form

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?