On February 25 this year, advocate J Sai Deepak argued before the Kerala High Court about the need to protect the traditions of the Sabarimala temple and not entertain external intervention in its affairs including the appointment of priests.
The development took place after a bunch of petitions were filed, challenging a notification (May 27, 2021) by the Travancore Dewaswom Board that invited applications from Malayala Brahmins for appointment as Chief Priest (Melshanthi) of the Sabarimala temple.
Advocate J Sai Deepak, who represented the ‘People for Dharma Trust’, pointed out that the appointment of the chief priest is not completely a secular activity and thus not violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 (1) and 16(2) of Indian constitution.
Here’s the link to the counter affidavit and written submissions filed in defense of the Sree Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple on behalf of @People4Dharma. Those who wish to read are welcome to and draw their own conclusions. Swamiye Saranam Ayyappa- https://t.co/DZzzQLgfyh pic.twitter.com/dRDpv3wdzO
— Sai Deepak J (@jsaideepak) March 12, 2023
While emphasising that the petitions challenging the Travancore Dewaswom Board notification is based on a flawed premise, he said, “The act of appointment is secular, but the considerations that go into the appointment are not secular, they are patently religious and they are patently unsecular but not anti-secular.”
J Sai Deepak stated that the Sabarimala temple is not fully controlled by the Government of Kerala and cannot be considered as an extension of the State (the very crux of the petitions) under provisions made under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1950.
The advocate argued that Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 21 (right to life) of the Indian constitution cannot supersede that of Articles 25 and 26 (right to religion) as the latter affects the temple, its deity and the devotees.
J Sai Deepak calls for the protection of Sabarimala temple traditions
“No class of individuals can claim rights better than the community itself,” J Said Deepak reiterated while calling for the protection of the age-old diverse traditions of the tantric temple
He further emphasised, “No other religion requires Art. 26 as much as the Hindu religion, or Hindu Dharma in that sense. It is an ocean that has several seas and lakes and rivers within it, each of which needs to be protected.”
The advocate added, “When this particular temple is considered it needs to be appreciated that this is a class in itself, even within the tantric denomination, therefore there are rights of Article 26 here.” J Sai Deepak also rubbished claims of ‘caste-based reservation’ for the post of the chief priest at Sabarimala temple.
Counsel dismisses claims of caste discrimination in appointments
“There is no caste consideration involved here, it doesn’t even say Brahmins from anywhere. That would’ve been a caste-based consideration directly. It doesn’t say Brahmins from anywhere,” he stated.
“Even the so-called purest of Chitambaram Brahmins cannot apply, Uttarakhandi Brahmins cannot apply, Kashmiri Brahmins cannot apply,” J Sai Deepak reiterated adding that the appointment of Melshanthi is in line with the preservation of spiritual energy at Sabarimala temple.
The advocate pointed out the ills of entertaining petitions challenging the 2021 notification of the Travancore Dewaswom Board. “If this particular petition were to succeed, it translates to the weaponisation of the noble principles of affirmative action (caste reservation), which is for a very different purpose altogether”.
J Sai Deepak highlights the ramifications of judicial intervention in the Sabarimala case
While arguing before the Kerala High Court, J Sai Deepak noted, “Any attempt through a judicial intervention to change this would amount to rewriting the history of the temple. That cannot be permitted. It has massive ramifications for everyone.”
He further stated, “Tomorrow if a person born in a Muslim family says I believe in this deity, I am well versed in the Vedas, I know Sanskrit, I know tantra, make me a priest in this temple. Why can’t they make that argument? After all the temple is open to everyone.”
“Tomorrow a Russian can apply. What if he becomes an Indian citizen and says I wish to become a priest here. This is not beyond the realm of possibility because that is the consequence of this petition. It opens the floodgates for everyone,” the advocate highlighted.
Advocate objects against the secularisation of non-secular activity
J Sai Deepak argued against the secularisation of non-secular activities such as appointments of priests in Hindu temples. “To reduce the religious prescriptions of the post of melshanti to secular activity is to completely miss the point,” he pointed out.
“If you believe that such a central aspect of the temple is a secular activity, then what remains religious of a religious temple? A temple is not a secular institution. Let us not beat around the bush on this point. It is a religious institution, every consideration is a religious institution,” he further added.
J Sai Deepak contended, “Crowd management is not religious, payment of salaries is not religious. Those are different aspects. But this is going into the heart of the identity of the temple and if I may say so, this petition is much more serious and graver in consequences than the temple entry issue.”
He also informed that the Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the right and extent up to which the Judiciary can interfere in such matters of religion. J Sai Deepak thus requested the Kerala High Court to defer the judgment until the Supreme court makes a decision about the ‘essential religious practice test.’
