Kerala HC junks plea against ‘Melsanthi’ appointment of Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple

The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the recent appointment of the ‘melsanthi’ or head priest of the Lord Ayyappa shrine at Sabarimala.

A division bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and G Girish stated that, after reviewing video clippings and CCTV footage of the election process, they found no reason to interfere with the selection of the melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple.

“In the result, the challenge made in this writ petition against the selection of the 5th respondent (Mahesh P N) as melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24) fails for the aforesaid reasons,” the bench said.

The petition was filed by Madhusoodanan Namboothiri, a devotee of Lord Ayyappa, who challenged the appointment of Mahesh P N as melsanthi of the hill-top shrine. Namboothiri sought direction from the Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct the selection process anew, alleging irregularities in the process.

According to Namboothiri, the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, did not follow the proper procedure while rolling the paper containing Mahesh’s name into the pot, leading to Mahesh’s selection as the melshanti.
The petitioner argued that the shaking of pots could result in unrolled paper pieces with less density and more area coming to the top, influencing the child drawing the lots to pick the unrolled pieces first.

The amicus curiae, representing the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, countered these claims, stating that thorough shaking inside the sanctum sanctorum was witnessed in the video footage. The amicus clarified that the drawing of lots was carried out by a child deputed by the erstwhile Pandalam Royal family and refuted the basis for the allegations in the writ petition.

The amicus also highlighted that the video and CCTV footage showed some lots in both pots being partially unfolded at the time of drawing lots due to the thorough shaking inside the sanctum sanctorum.

Additionally, it was mentioned that the paper pieces containing Mahesh’s name and the writing ‘melsanthi’ were properly folded and rolled by the Special Commissioner before being placed in their respective pots. After considering these arguments, the bench concurred with the amicus’s submissions and found no grounds to interfere with the selection process