Kerala HC: Caste or Lineage Not Needed for Temple Priests

Kerala High Court Rules Caste or Lineage Not Essential for Temple Priesthood

Court says appointment of priests is not an “essential religious practice” under the Constitution

Travancore Devaswom Board and Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board’s decision to recognize Thanthra Vidyalayas upheld

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 22, 2025: In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court has ruled that the appointment of temple priests (known as santhis) cannot be restricted to members of a particular caste or lineage. The Court held that such restrictions do not qualify as an “essential religious practice” protected under the Constitution of India.

The ruling came while dismissing a petition filed by the Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam (AKTS), a body representing traditional temple priests, which had challenged the recognition of Thanthra Vidyalayas (institutions that train priests) by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB).

The Case and the Petition

The petitioners argued that the appointment of priests should strictly follow traditional customs, which historically limited the role to specific Brahmin families or lineages. They claimed that allowing candidates trained in Thanthra Vidyalayas diluted centuries-old practices and violated religious freedom.

The AKTS also objected to the KDRB’s notification that required candidates to hold certificates from recognized Thanthra Vidyalayas as a qualification for appointment as part-time priests.

The Court’s Observations

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar rejected the petitioners’ arguments. The Court made several key observations:

No Essential Religious Practice: The Court clarified that insisting on caste or lineage for priesthood cannot be considered an essential religious practice. Essential practices are those integral to the faith itself, without which the religion would lose its identity.
Equality and Constitutional Values: The Bench emphasized that practices which are discriminatory, oppressive, or contrary to public policy cannot be protected under the Constitution.
Role of Thanthra Vidyalayas: The Court upheld the recognition of Thanthra Vidyalayas as legitimate institutions for training priests, noting that their certification process ensures proper knowledge of rituals and traditions.
Secular Nature of Appointments: The Court underlined that appointments to temple positions, while religious in function, must also respect constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Wider Implications of the Judgment

This ruling is significant for several reasons:

Breaking Caste Barriers: By rejecting caste-based restrictions, the Court has opened the door for individuals from diverse backgrounds to serve as temple priests, provided they have the required training.
Modernizing Temple Administration: The decision strengthens the role of Devaswom Boards in ensuring that temple appointments are based on merit and training rather than hereditary privilege.
Balancing Tradition and Law: The judgment reflects the judiciary’s approach of respecting religious practices while ensuring they align with constitutional values of equality and social justice.

Reactions to the Verdict

Supporters of Reform: Many social reformers and progressive groups welcomed the decision, calling it a step toward inclusivity and equality in temple administration. They argue that devotion and knowledge, not caste, should determine eligibility for priesthood.
Traditionalists’ Concerns: On the other hand, members of the AKTS and other traditional priestly families expressed disappointment, saying the ruling undermines centuries-old customs and could dilute the sanctity of temple rituals.
Legal Experts’ View: Constitutional scholars noted that the judgment is consistent with earlier Supreme Court rulings that have struck down practices deemed discriminatory or non-essential to religion.

Historical Context

The debate over caste and priesthood is not new in Kerala or India. Historically, temple priesthood was restricted to certain Brahmin families. However, reform movements in Kerala, including those led by social reformers like Sree Narayana Guru, challenged caste-based discrimination in religious spaces.

In recent decades, courts have repeatedly emphasized that while religious freedom is protected, it cannot override constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. The Kerala High Court’s ruling continues this trajectory of reform.

The Role of Devaswom Boards

The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB) play a central role in temple administration in Kerala. Their decision to recognize Thanthra Vidyalayas was based on expert consultation and aimed at ensuring that priests are well-trained in rituals, regardless of caste background.

The Court noted that these boards acted within their authority and in line with constitutional principles.

Looking Ahead

The judgment is expected to influence temple administration across Kerala and possibly other states. It sets a precedent that caste or lineage cannot be the sole criteria for religious appointments.

However, the debate is far from over. Traditionalist groups may consider appealing the decision, while reformist voices will likely push for broader implementation of the ruling.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s ruling marks a turning point in the intersection of religion, law, and social justice. By declaring that caste or lineage is not essential for temple priesthood, the Court has reinforced the principle that constitutional values must guide even deeply rooted traditions.

This decision is not just about temple appointments—it is about the larger question of how India balances faith with equality in a modern democracy.