The Kerala High Court has taken a strong stance against the illegal exploitation of pilgrims visiting Sabarimala temple for the traditional ‘pottukuthal’ ritual, directing the Travancore Devaswom Board to take immediate action against private entities found charging devotees for the service.

The Court highlighted that any form of exploitation of Sabarimala pilgrims will not be tolerated and made it clear that charging for the pottukuthal ritual is unlawful.

The Division Bench, comprising Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar, issued this directive while hearing a petition filed by devotees challenging a tender notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board.

The petitioners argued that the ritual, which involves the application of vibhuthi, sindoor, or chandanam on the forehead of devotees, has always been a customary practice and should be provided free of charge.

The petitioners claimed that the Board’s notification, which allowed private entities to charge ₹10 for the ritual at the Erumeli temple, violated their constitutional right to religious freedom.

Court Denounces Exploitation of Pilgrims

In its observation, the Bench noted that the exploitation of Sabarimala pilgrims, who undertake their pilgrimage to worship Lord Ayyappa, cannot be permitted under any circumstances.

“No devotee or Sabarimala pilgrim can be exploited based on any usage like the one stated in the order (pottukuthal),” the Court remarked.

The Bench has also directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to take stringent steps to ensure that no illegal activities occur within the temple premises, especially during key pilgrimage seasons such as the Mandala Magaram Velak and Makaravilakku festivals.

The Court is closely monitoring temple activities during these festivals through reports filed by the Special Commissioner for Sabarimala.

Travancore Devaswom Board’s Response and Rollback

The Travancore Devaswom Board, in its earlier defense, had stated that the tender notification allowing private entities to charge for the pottukuthal ritual was intended to prevent unauthorized individuals from extorting pilgrims. However, the Court was not satisfied with this justification.

The Board has now revoked the controversial tender and announced that the pottukuthal ritual will be provided free of cost to all devotees.

Additionally, the Board has assured the Court that strict legal action will be taken against anyone found demanding a fee for performing the ritual.

The Board also clarified that the pottukuthal ritual, which is often performed by pilgrims after participating in the sacred ‘pettathullal’ dance or taking a holy dip in the Erumeli River, is not an essential religious ritual of the Erumeli temple.

Rather, it is an age-old custom followed by devotees on their pilgrimage to Sabarimala.

To facilitate the performance of the ritual, the Board has installed mirrors at various locations such as the Nadapanthal and Aanakott in Erumeli, with vibhuthi, sindoor, and chandanam placed beneath them.

This allows devotees to conduct the ritual themselves without any external interference or charges.

Constitutional Rights and Religious Freedom

The petitioners, represented by advocates Sajith Kumar V, Vivek AV, and Sreehari VS, had argued that the imposition of charges for the pottukuthal ritual infringed upon their constitutional right to freely practice their religion.

They contended that while devotees have traditionally been free to perform the ritual on their own, those wishing to make voluntary donations have always had the option of doing so through temple hundis (offering boxes).

The Kerala High Court’s firm directive aims to safeguard the religious freedoms of Sabarimala pilgrims and ensure that no private entity is allowed to exploit them for financial gain.

The case will be heard again on October 15, when further updates on the implementation of the Court’s orders will be reviewed.

• Bench Details: The case was heard by a Division Bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar.
• Party Details: Petitioners were represented by advocates Sajith Kumar V, Vivek AV, and Sreehari VS. The respondent was the Travancore Devaswom Board.