Merit Over Caste

Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

Can caste determine who becomes a temple priest? The Kerala High Court answered with a resounding "no" on October 22, 2025, ruling that merit and qualifications—not lineage or community—must govern temple appointments. This landmark judgment challenges centuries of tradition by holding that while religious practices are protected under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution, discriminatory appointment processes violate fundamental rights guaranteeing equality (Article 14), prohibition of discrimination (Article 15), and abolition of untouchability (Article 17). 

What was the Dispute About? 

• The case arose when the Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam—a society of traditional Brahmin temple priests—challenged new appointment rules introduced by the Kerala government in 2022 for temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). 
• Traditionally, aspiring priests learned rituals under senior Thanthris (chief priests), whose certification was the primary qualification. This system effectively kept priesthood within specific families and upper-caste communities, passed down through generations. 
• The new TDB rules required candidates to obtain certification from a state-accredited 'Thanthra Vidyalayam'—an institution teaching temple rituals approved by the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB). The Thanthri Samajam argued this undermined their spiritual authority and interfered with "essential religious practices" protected under Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution. 

What Did the Government Argue? 

• The state government framed its argument around social reform and constitutional morality. While acknowledging that a priest's duties are religious, it maintained that the appointment process itself is a secular, administrative function subject to state regulation. 
• The government contended the new rules establish a transparent, merit-based system accessible to all qualified individuals, regardless of background. Officials argued the previous system perpetuated "hereditary priesthood" and "caste-based discrimination," creating what they termed a "caste oligarchy" that violated constitutional principles. 
• By requiring institutional certification, the 2022 rules opened priesthood opportunities to all communities, including Scheduled Castes and Tribes. 

How Did the Court Rule and Why? 

The Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and KV Jayakumar dismissed the petition, establishing several key legal principles: 

• Secular vs. Religious Functions: The court distinguished between religious duties (performing rituals) and secular functions (recruitment and appointment), holding that the state can regulate the latter. 
• No Denominational Rights: The petitioners failed to qualify as a separate religious denomination entitled to control their affairs. A religious denomination requires common faith, organization, and a distinctive name. Here, the connecting factor was caste, not distinct religious tenets. 
• Not an Essential Practice: The court rejected claims that certification exclusively by Thanthris was essential to Hinduism. Using the Supreme Court's test—whether a practice is so fundamental that the religion would be altered without it—the Bench found that proficiency in rituals, mantras, and scriptures was the essential requirement, not the certifier's caste. 
• Constitutional Supremacy: Most importantly, the court held that no custom or tradition, regardless of its antiquity, can violate fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution—particularly Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), and Article 17 (abolition of untouchability). Such customs are legally void under Article 13, which declares all laws inconsistent with fundamental rights to be void. 

Why Does This Ruling Matter? 

• This ruling represents a significant step in separating caste from religious functions in India. By upholding that "qualifications, not caste or pedigree" determine eligibility for priesthood, the court reinforced the state's role in reforming secular aspects of religious administration. 
• The judgment balances religious freedom with constitutional rights, establishing that while religious practices are protected, discriminatory appointment processes are not. It sets a precedent for similar reforms across religious institutions, prioritizing merit and equality over hereditary privilege in administrative functions connected to religious establishments. 

Conclusion 

The Kerala High Court's ruling draws a clear line: tradition cannot trump constitutional rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. By declaring that appointment processes must comply with Articles 14, 15, and 17—ensuring merit-based and caste-neutral selection—the court has opened temple doors to qualified individuals from all backgrounds. This judgment modernizes religious administration without interfering with worship itself, proving that equality and devotion can coexist—a principle that may reshape religious institutional governance across India.