The Kerala High Court has raised concerns over the Travancore Devaswom Board's decision to levy a fee on pilgrims for performing the religious ritual of pottukuthal—the application of vibhuti, sindoor, or chandan—at the Sabarimala temple.

The matter was brought before the court through a petition filed by two devotees, Manoj S Nair and another, challenging the legality of a tender notification issued by the Board. The petitioners argued that the Board's move to allow private contractors to charge ₹10 per person for the ritual was unlawful.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar took up the matter, which focused on the Board’s decision to permit private contractors to collect fees at Erumeli, the primary base camp for pilgrims heading to Sabarimala.

The petitioners, both long-time devotees of the temple, filed the case specifically contesting clauses B7 and B8 of a tender notification issued by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Pathanamthitta. These clauses pertain to the ritual of pottukuthal, performed after the customary pettathullal and a holy bath at Erumeli, a significant stop on the pilgrimage route.

The petitioners argued that pottukuthal is an essential religious practice and that, until recently, it had always been available to pilgrims free of charge. They further contended that charging pilgrims for this sacred practice not only placed a financial burden on them but also infringed upon their constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom.

The petitioners suggested that rather than imposing a mandatory fee, the Devaswom Board could have adopted a voluntary contribution model by placing donation boxes (hundis) near the ritual site, as is customary at many temples across Kerala.

In response, the Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by its standing counsel, defended its decision to include the fee in the tender notification. The Board argued that the measure was introduced to address the issue of unauthorised individuals who had been charging exorbitant amounts for the ritual, thus exploiting pilgrims. The counsel presented video evidence showing unauthorized persons collecting money at Erumeli and explained that mirrors had been installed at the site to enable pilgrims to perform the ritual free of charge if they wished to do so.

The court posed a key question to the Board: whether pottukuthal constitutes an essential religious practice at Erumeli. The Board's counsel requested more time to seek instructions on this issue. The petitioners clarified that their aim was not to support the exploitation of pilgrims by unauthorised individuals, but to oppose the imposition of any mandatory fee for the ritual.

The court allowed time for the petitioners to file an application to include the successful bidders of the tender and the local Station House Officer in the case. It also directed the Board's counsel to clarify whether pottukuthal is an essential religious practice before adjourning the matter for further hearing on October 8, 2024.

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