Judgment :- Sankarasubban, J. This Writ Petition rises an important question with regard to the appointment of Melsanthi in the Guruvayoor Temple. As per the notification of the Devaswom, the post of Melsanthi in the Temple is opened only to Namboothiris residing in Sukapuram and Peruvanam and should have “Agnihothram” or ‘Bhattavrithi’. Age limit is between 35 and 65. Since the petitioner complied with all the qualifications mentioned in the notification, applied for the post. But his application was not considered on the ground that he was a ‘Parivethanakkaran’. According to the petitioner, the concept of ‘Parivethanakkaran’ has no relevance in the present day society. The term ‘Parivethanakkaran’ is defined in verse 171 of Chapter III of Manusmrithi as ‘a younger brother who marries before his elder brother’. Among Brahmins the marriage of a younger brother before the marriage of the elder brother was considered to be a sin and among brothers only the elder one was supposed to marry. The purpose behind putting such a restriction was to make available the younger brothers for the holy and sacred duties while the elder brother only married and kept the family tree growing. 2. By the lapse of time, among Namboothiris, this system has undergone substantial change and it was exploited as a method for preserving the family assets in tact. During this period, the aforesaid rule got diluted and the elder brother continued to marry from his own caste and the younger brothers also started marrying but from other cases so that the assets of the family will be remained in tact. By the middle of 20th century, several youngsters started marrying from their own caste against the custom of marrying from outside the caste. The Orthodox sector among the Namboothiris was against this because it led to the family partitions and other consequences. The contention of the Devaswom was that they are merely following the Thanthris advise. 3. Under Section 35(1) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, a Committee or the Commissioner or the Government has to interfere with the religious or spiritual matters pertaining to the Devaswom. Section 35(2) of the above Act says that the decision of the Thanthri of the Temple on all religious, spiritual, ritual or ceremonial matters pertaining to the Devaswom shall be final, unless such decision violates any provision contained in any law for the time being in force. 4. Section 35(2) of the above Act says that the decision of the Thanthri of the Temple on all religious, spiritual, ritual or ceremonial matters pertaining to the Devaswom shall be final, unless such decision violates any provision contained in any law for the time being in force. 4. The Thanthri has filed a counter affidavit wherein he has stated that the post of Melsanthi can be given only to a candidate who fulfills all conventional and traditional requirements relating to the post and which are special and peculiar to Guruvayoor Temple. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even though the advise of the Thanthri has been followed in religious matters, disqualification of ‘Parivethanakkaran’ cannot in any sense, said to be a religious matter. Further, it is stated that the Thanthri’s advice even though final should not be arbitrary and cannot be against the laws. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at any costs, the custom and tradition of the Temple had to be maintained. The Thanthri has not stated as to why a ‘Parivethanakkaran’ is excluded from being appointed as a Melsanthi. In A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P. and Others – A.I.R. 1996 (9) SCC 548 it was held as follows: “There is a distinction between religious service and the person who performs the service; performance of the religious service according to the tenets, Agamas, customs and usages prevalent in the temple etc. is an integral part of the religious faith and belief and to that extent the legislature cannot intervene to regulate it. But the service of the priest (archaka) is a secular post. As seen earlier, the right to perform religious service has appointment by the owner of the temple or king as its source. The legislature is competent to enact the law taking away the hereditary right to succeed to an office in the temple and equally to the office of the priest (archaka). The hereditary right as such is not an integral part of the religious practice but a source to secure the services of a priest independent of it. Though performance of the ritual ceremonies is an integral part of the religion, the person who performs it or associates himself with performance of ritual ceremonies, is not. The hereditary right as such is not an integral part of the religious practice but a source to secure the services of a priest independent of it. Though performance of the ritual ceremonies is an integral part of the religion, the person who performs it or associates himself with performance of ritual ceremonies, is not. Therefore, when the hereditary right to perform service in the temple is terminable by an owner for bad conduct, its abolition by sovereign legislature is equally valid and legal”. 5. We are in a Democratic Republic having secular outlook. Any custom, which is opposed to law and the rights given under the Constitution cannot be valid. Function of Melsanthi is to perform poojas. It is not stated that by marrying from another caste, the petitioner becomes a non-Namboothiri. As held by the Supreme Court the religious practice and the service are the poojas performed to the deity. So far as the contention of the Santhis are concerned, the qualifications can be prescribed. But such qualifications shall not be arbitrary. The post of Melsanthi is a post which should be duly filled up by qualified person. Hence, we are of the view that the condition of ‘Parivethanam’ is arbitrary and we direct that future selection from ‘Parivethanakkaran’ will not be disqualification. Writ Petition is disposed of as above.