ED Challenges Magistrate's Denial of Sabarimala FIR, Citing PMLA Jurisdiction and Public Document Doctrine

KOCHI – A significant jurisdictional question has emerged before the Kerala High Court as the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has filed a petition challenging a Ranni Magistrate Court's refusal to provide a certified copy of the First Information Report (FIR) in the high-profile Sabarimala gold theft case. The ED contends that this denial obstructs its statutory duty to investigate potential money laundering, setting the stage for a legal battle over the powers of parallel investigating agencies, especially when one investigation is under direct High Court supervision.

The case, Directorate of Enforcement v State of Kerala , has been listed for an admission hearing on November 17. The ED's petition argues that the lower court's order is based on an erroneous interpretation of the High Court's directives and fundamentally misunderstands the ED's independent mandate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

Background: The Gold Theft Allegations and a High Court-Monitored Probe

The controversy stems from allegations of large-scale financial irregularities at the revered Sabarimala temple. The case, detailed in the Sabarimala Special Commissioner Report (SSCR No. 23/2025), involves accusations of misappropriation of gold extracted from the temple's sacred Dwarapalaka idols and gold-clad door frames of the Sreekovil (sanctum sanctorum). The primary accused include Unnikrishnan Potty and others.

Following a directive from the Kerala High Court dated October 10, 2025, the state's Crime Branch registered an FIR and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted to probe the matter. The High Court has been directly monitoring the progress of this SIT investigation.

It was in this context that the ED, citing its mandate to investigate financial crimes, filed an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni, seeking a certified copy of the FIR and the First Information Statement (FIS). The application was summarily rejected. The Magistrate reasoned that since the High Court was directly monitoring the investigation and had stipulated that the probe be conducted exclusively by the SIT, providing the documents to another agency was not permissible.

The ED's Legal Challenge: Arguments Before the High Court

The ED, represented by Standing Counsel Jaisankar V Nair, has mounted a multi-pronged legal challenge against the Magistrate's order, invoking provisions from India's new criminal codes. The core arguments presented in its petition, Crl. M C 10327/2025 , are as follows:

1. FIR as a Public Document: The agency firmly contends that an FIR is a public document under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. As such, there is no legal prohibition on issuing certified copies to another statutory investigating agency, especially one tasked with probing a distinct aspect of the alleged crime. > "The ED has challenged this order contending that an FIR is a public document under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and there is no bar in issuing certified copies to another statutory investigating agency," the petition states.

2. Triggering of PMLA Jurisdiction: The ED asserts that the offences alleged in the FIR, which include forgery under Section 467 of the IPC and violations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, are "scheduled offences" under the PMLA. The existence of a scheduled offence is the predicate for the ED to launch its own inquiry into money laundering. > The petition highlights that the modus operandi suggests temple property was "illicitly diverted and its proceeds converted for personal gain, thereby generating 'proceeds of crime' as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)."

3. Misinterpretation of High Court's Order: The ED argues that the Magistrate misinterpreted the scope of the High Court's interim orders. The agency's petition clarifies that the High Court's primary concern was to restrict a "media trial" and ensure the sanctity of the SIT's investigation, not to create a blanket prohibition against other statutory agencies performing their duties. It argues there is no conflict, as the SIT is investigating the predicate crime while the ED's focus is on the subsequent laundering of the proceeds.

4. Obstruction of Statutory Mandate: The refusal to provide the FIR, the ED claims, effectively blocks it from fulfilling its statutory obligations under the PMLA. The petition, invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, frames the denial as an unjust impediment to a lawful investigation under a special statute.

The ED's plea seeks a directive from the High Court ordering the Ranni Magistrate Court to immediately issue certified copies of the FIR and FIS, allowing it to formally commence its PMLA investigation.

Related Developments: Anticipatory Bail for Former TDB Secretary

In a parallel development highlighting the case's complexity, a bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath on Friday granted interim protection from arrest to S Jayasree, a former Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) secretary and the fourth accused in the case. The High Court restrained the SIT from arresting her until November 18, after her initial plea for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the Pathanamthitta Sessions Court.

According to the FIR, Jayasree allegedly issued orders that facilitated the handing over of valuable materials to Unnikrishnan Potty, leading to the theft. However, in her anticipatory bail petition, she maintained that her actions were merely in execution of the TDB's collective decision regarding gold plating work at the Sreekovil. Her plea also highlighted serious health concerns, including a kidney transplant in 2013, which the court took into consideration while granting the interim relief.

Legal Implications and What Lies Ahead

This case presents a critical test of inter-agency cooperation and jurisdictional boundaries in criminal investigations. The High Court's decision will have far-reaching implications:

• Clarifying the Scope of Monitored Investigations: The ruling will set a precedent on whether a High Court-monitored investigation by a state agency can preclude a parallel probe by a central agency under a separate federal statute like the PMLA.
• Access to Information for Law Enforcement: The judgment will reaffirm or qualify the principle of an FIR being a public document, particularly in sensitive, high-profile cases.
• Application of New Criminal Codes: The case is one of the early instances where provisions of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, are being invoked before a High Court, providing an opportunity for judicial interpretation.

Legal experts will be keenly watching the proceedings on November 17. The outcome will not only determine the course of the Sabarimala gold theft probe but also shape the operational dynamics between state and central law enforcement agencies across the country.