Appointment of Sabarimala melsanthi: argument that constitution is also being subjected to untouchability

KOCHI: Constitutional expert and Supreme Court lawyer Mohan Gopal stated, 'when it is said that the Constitution is not allowed inside the shrine, the constitution is also being subjected to untouchability like the avarnas'. He was objecting to the arguments of the amicus curiae in the special sitting of the Sabarimala Melsanthi appointment case. Mohan Gopal supported the argument of amicus curiae KB Pradeep that the Melsanthi appointment was a public appointment and the category of Malayala Brahmin was not defined.

Any institution including temples in India is governed by the Constitution. Devaswom Board is a statutory body. It cannot be argued that it is a separate sect within the religion. Non-permanent appointment and payment of an honorarium instead of a salary, does not give the right to discriminate by caste. He also pointed out that it cannot be said that only certain castes can be appointed, even if a salary is not paid. The amicus curiae pointed out that Sabarimala Melsanthi's position is a non-avoidable religious practice.

It is 100 percent reserved for Malayala Brahmins. The court cannot interfere in this. The change in this would be a breach of custom. The shrine is beyond the constitution. Melsanthi's appointment is only a contract appointment. The amicus curiae argued that the constitutional validity of all religious practices should not be examined. All these were the same arguments made by the Devaswom Board lawyer to justify the Malayala Brahmin appointment. Apart from Mohan Gopal, advocates BG Harindranath and TR Rajesh appeared for the non-brahmin santhis. The case was adjourned to April 11.