J Sai Deepak makes five critical points during argument in Sabarimala Temple priest appointment case

The Supreme Court is seized off a matter as to how much can the courts in the country can interfere in religious matters, J Sai Deepak told the Kerala High Court.

Advocate J Sai Deepak had on February 25 argued before the Kerala High Court about the need to protect the traditions of the Sabarimala Temple.

He pointed out that external intervention in the affairs of the Temple must be presented at any cost. This would also include the appointment of priests at the Temple he said.

The case arose after a bunch of petitions were filed challenging a notification of May 27 2021 by the Travancore Dewaswom Board which invited applications from the Malayala Brahmins for the appointment of chief priest at the Sabarimala Temple.

Representing the 'People for Dharma' trust, J Sai Deepak argued that the appointment of the chief priest is not completely a secular activity and hence not violative of fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15 (1) and 16(2) of the Indian Constitution.

While stating that the petitions changing the notification is based on a flawed premise, he said, "the act of appointment is secular, but the considerations that go into the appointments are not secular. They are patently religious and patently unsecular, but not anti-secular."

Deepak said that the Sabarimala Temple is not fully controlled by the Kerala government and hence cannot be considered as an extension of the state under the provisions made under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1950.

He also argued that Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 14 cannot supersede Articles 25 and 26 as the latter affects the Temple, its diety and devotees.

"No class of individuals can claim rights better than the community itself," Deepak said while reiterating and calling for the protection of the age-old diverse traditions of the tantric Temple.

Hey also said, "norther religion requires Article 26 as much as the Hindu religion or Dharma in that sense. It is an ocean that has several seas and lakes and rivers within it, each of which need to be protected."

"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 said while rubbishing claims of caste-based reservation for the post of chief priest at Sabarimala Temple.

He further added, "there is no 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."

Even the so-called purest of Chitambaram Brahmins cannot apply. Uttarakhandi Brahmins or Kashmiri Brahmins cannot apply. The appointment of Melshanthi or chief priest is in line with the preservation of spiritual energy at Sabarimala Temple, he also added.

He said that if these petitions were to succeed, it translates to the weaponisation of the noble principles of affirmative action, which is for a very different purpose all together.

"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," J Sai Deepak said.

He further said, 'tomorrow if a person born in a Muslim family says, that he believes in this deity, I am well versed with 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 he wises 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 to everyone," he further said.

To reduce the religious prescriptions of the post of melshanti to secular activity is to completely miss the point, he dded.

"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,: J Sai Deepak argued.

"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 said.

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the right and extent up to which the judiciary can interfere in matters of religion, he said. J Sai Deepak also requested the Kerala High Court to defer the judgment until the Supreme Court makes a decision about the essential religious practice test.