Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has questioned the legality of the Travancore Devaswom Board's decision to impose a fee on pilgrims for performing the religious ritual pottukuthal (the application of vibhuti, sindoor, or chandan) at the Sabarimala temple. The issue arose during the hearing of a petition filed by two devotees, Manoj S Nair and another, challenging a tender notification issued by the Board. The petitioners contended that the Board's move to invite private entities to collect ₹10 per person for pottukuthal was illegal.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PG Ajithkumar considered the matter, which involved the Board's notification allowing private contractors to charge pilgrims at Erumeli, the main base camp for Sabarimala pilgrims.

The petitioners, both long-time devotees of Sabarimala's deity, moved the court challenging clauses B7 and B8 of a tender notification issued by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Pathanamthitta. These clauses concerned the ritual of pottukuthal—after performing pettathullal and taking a holy bath at Erumeli, a customary stop for pilgrims on their journey to Sabarimala. The petitioners argued that pottukuthal is a traditional and essential religious practice, previously available without any charge. It was contended that the Board's decision to auction the right to collect fees for the ritual undermined their constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. According to the petition, private entities exploiting the sacred practice by charging pilgrims was not only financially burdensome but also an infringement on religious freedom. The petitioners further suggested that the Devaswom Board could have opted for a more voluntary contribution model by placing donation boxes (hundis) near the ritual sites, as is customary in many temples across Kerala, rather than forcing pilgrims to pay a fee.

The Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by its standing counsel, defended the decision to include pottukuthal in the tender notification. The Board argued that the move was aimed at curbing unauthorised individuals who had been charging exorbitant amounts for the ritual, thus exploiting devotees. The counsel also submitted two video clips to the Court showing unauthorized persons collecting money from pilgrims at Erumeli. The Board stated that mirrors had been installed at the site to allow pilgrims to perform the ritual themselves without any cost.

The court posed a crucial question to the Board: whether pottukuthal is an essential religious practice at Erumeli?. The Board’s counsel requested additional time to obtain instructions on this matter. The petitioners clarified that their objective was not to support unauthorised persons exploiting pilgrims, but rather to prevent any mandatory fees for the ritual.

The court, thereafter, allowed time for the petitioners to file an application to implead the successful bidders of the tender and the local Station House Officer. Additionally, it directed the Board’s counsel to clarify whether pottukuthal constitutes an essential religious practice and scheduled the matter for further hearing on October 8, 2024.

 

Cause Title: Manoj S Nair and And v Travancore Devaswom Board [WP(C) NO. 34716 OF 2024]