Monopoly or non-monopoly over religion / religious matters ?

#lawinroutine

Monopoly  or  non-monopoly over religion / religious matters ?
It is reiterated many time by the supreme court that state is a no religion state which means state shall not interfere in the matters of religion . courts can only resolve the dispute arise from the functioning of religious practice in state.  #lawinroutine.

Supreme court recently on 14 july 2020 overturn the judgment of kerala high court and held that the successor of the ruler of TRAVANCORE can continue the shebaitship in shri padmanabhaswamy temple. [ shebaitship means to perform religious act for god / deity LIKE to offer food or prasadam ]

Padmanabhaswami temple comes in limelight in 2011 when more than one lakh crore treasure found in temple and still in count.  After the death of last ruler in 1911 CPM GOVERNMENT issyed a notice that performance of the religious activities of the temple shall be do in a normal manner . kerala highcourt held that special status to the ruler , the word ‘ruler’  in article 366 [22] of the constitution of india as amendment by the constitution [ 26th amendment ] and  also held that management of the temple shall be handle by the administration and under the control; of state.

Supreme court overturn the judgment of kerala HC held that there is not a question of official status of a person . ruler is only allowed to perform the act of shebaitship because post of ruler attached with temple in a HEREDITARY / customary manner . however the management of temple is still under state / administration.

IN ADITYA V/S TRAVANCORE DEWASWOM BOARD [ 2ND SUPP ] NSC 3538
In this case supreme court that Brahmins has no monopoly over the religious practice . non Brahmins can also perform religious act in temple as ‘pujaaris’ . any person competent to speak holy shlokas , read literatures  and vedas ,  perform religious act proper can be competent to perform religious act in any temple.

IN BHURI V/S STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AIR 1997 SC. 1711.
In this case hereditary post of priest in the main temple of shree mata vaishno devi and validity of the mata vaishno devi shrine act 1988  was challenged by the petitioner . supre court in this case held that in this case the question is of religious practice . state can regulate the matters of religious practice as per article 12. Priest of a temple know the priest is holder of the office who perform act of offering to the deity and can only select his successor . supreme court not interfere in this matter  but said that state cannot regulate religious faith but can regulate religious practice like appointing priest.

#thankyou #lawinroutine