Kerala High Court Urges Law for Temple Properties Protection - 2026-01-13

Kerala High Court Urges Law for Temple Properties Protection

In a striking intervention that underscores the vulnerabilities plaguing India's sacred institutions, the Kerala High Court on January 12, 2025, orally urged the state government to enact a comprehensive statute with stringent penal provisions to safeguard temple assets. This call came during hearings on bail applications in the high-profile Sabarimala gold misappropriation case, where allegations of theft from the temple's revered Dwarapalaka idols and doorframes have implicated former officials of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and a prominent jeweler. Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the single-bench proceedings, critiqued the inadequacy of the existing Devaswom Manual, emphasizing that mere violations of administrative guidelines fall short of deterring criminal acts amid a rising tide of temple-related embezzlements. With 12 accused already in judicial custody and investigations expanding to include money laundering probes by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the court's remarks signal a potential pivot toward legislative reform, compelling legal professionals to reassess accountability mechanisms for public religious trusts.

The Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Saga

The Sabarimala Temple, nestled in the Western Ghats and drawing millions of pilgrims annually to honor Lord Ayyappa, stands as a cornerstone of Kerala's cultural and spiritual heritage. Yet, in late 2024, it became the epicenter of a scandal involving the alleged pilfering of gold from its sacred artifacts. The misappropriation targeted gold ornaments on the Dwarapalaka (guardian) idols and ornate doorframes of the Sreekovil (sanctum sanctorum), assets accumulated over centuries through devotee offerings.

The Kerala High Court, recognizing the gravity of the matter, appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case. To date, the SIT has filed two charge sheets naming 15 individuals, leading to the arrest of 12, all now in judicial custody. Among them are A. Padmakumar, former TDB President; B. Murari Babu, ex-Administrative Officer; and Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan, a Bellary-based jeweler accused of involvement in the gold's handling and possible recovery discrepancies.

Complicating the narrative, the ED has registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, despite resistance from the Kerala government. A local court directed the SIT to share details with the ED, amplifying the financial crime angle. Furthermore, state BJP president Rajeev Chandrasekhar has petitioned the High Court for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) takeover, with a verdict pending. This multi-agency scrutiny highlights systemic lapses in oversight, where temple properties—valued in crores and held in public trust—appear susceptible to insider threats.

The case's roots trace to suspicions of unauthorized gold-plating and asset transfers, allegedly facilitated by prime accused Unnikrishnan Potti, a non-official entrusted with key responsibilities in violation of protocols. Such breaches have not only eroded devotee trust but also spotlighted the Devaswom Board's hierarchical failures, as noted during the hearings.

Judicial Call for Legislative Reform

At the heart of the January 12 proceedings were bail applications filed by Padmakumar (Bail Appl. Nos. 14662/2025 and 172/2026), Govardhanan (Bail Appl. Nos. 14761/2025, 14762/2025, and 148/2026), and Babu (Bail Appl. No. 149/2026). Justice Badharudeen reserved orders after extensive arguments, but his oral observations on legislative needs dominated the session.

Addressing the Additional Director General of Prosecution (ADGP), the judge questioned the state's reluctance to legislate specifically for temple protection. "Why can't you go for a Rules? Devaswom Management Rules? So that some penal provision also can be incorporated? Now various instances in temples coming with history of misappropriation. You may think of legislation. Manual by itself is not (sufficient). Disobedience may go for some disciplinary action. Binding on them and failure thereof is only disciplinary action. Not offence," the court remarked.

The ADGP countered that the Devaswom Manual remains binding on TDB officers, positioning Padmakumar as the responsible hierarchy head. Undeterred, Justice Badharudeen proposed a tentative title: the 'Kerala State Devaswom Properties Protection and Preservation Act.' He opined that such a law would criminalize derelictions, stating, “Many instances of misappropriation are coming to light in temples with vast accumulated assets. Those entrusted with their protection owe a duty to believers. For that, there must be an enactment.”

The judge urged the ADGP to recommend this to the government, noting, "You should have a specific statute because many temples, there are properties accumulated and somebody who are in and around the same, in one way or another misappropriates the same. Many cases are coming. And he shall have the duty to protect the devaswom property to the interest of the believers." This reflects a judicial push to bridge the gap between administrative guidelines and criminal law, potentially incorporating provisions akin to the Indian Penal Code's (IPC) sections on criminal breach of trust (e.g., Section 409).

Bail Hearings: Arguments and Counterpoints

The bail pleas elicited robust defenses, centered on the absence of criminal intent and procedural lapses in the prosecution's case.

Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu, representing Padmakumar, argued that allegations hinge solely on Devaswom Manual violations, which do not constitute penal offenses. "The only allegation made out is regarding violation of the Devaswom Manual and this was not a penal offence," he submitted. Padmakumar, in custody for 52 days and arrested mid-cooperation, promised to avoid Sabarimala and Thiruvananthapuram if released, citing no post-retirement influence.

For Govardhanan, the same counsel portrayed him as a devout Ayyappa worshipper with over ₹1.4 crores in temple contributions, including 35 lakhs for Sreekovil doors and 474.97 grams of 24k gold forcibly taken by the SIT as "recovery." Vijayabhanu contended Govardhanan should be a prosecution witness, not accused, producing flight tickets evidencing his investigative cooperation. He challenged claims of gold weight reduction post-plating, asserting an actual increase.

Advocate S. Rajeev, for Babu (in custody 81 days, second bail attempt), highlighted changed circumstances: completed face ID for phone unlocking and lapsed custodial interrogation needs. The prosecution's case, he argued, lacks evidence of misappropriation beyond allegations.

Justice Badharudeen acknowledged the Manual's role in tracing duties but clarified, "Mere violation of Manual doesn't by itself make any offence but when a duty is vested upon a party even by an office order... doing a criminal act, in derogation of the order, is he is not doing the duty assigned, then that becomes an offence." He noted violation as the "first part" of the offense, with criminal attraction via IPC provisions.

Scrutiny on Investigation and Oversight Failures

The court did not spare the SIT or TDB. It lambasted the probe team for failing to arrest K.P. Sankar Das, a former TDB member. "A person has been admitted to a hospital ever since he was arraigned an accused in the case. His son is a Superintendent of Police. What nonsense is happening in this state? I completely disagree with the investigating officer," Justice Badharudeen said, decrying perceived favoritism.

Similarly, the TDB faced sharp criticism for delegating unchecked powers to Unnikrishnan Potti. "Why the devaswom board permitted Unnikrishnan Potti to do everything? Then what is the duty of the devaswom board? As good as no devaswom board. That's better," the court quipped, underscoring institutional abdication.

These remarks amplify concerns over investigative integrity, especially with ED's PMLA overlay and the looming CBI decision.

(Note: Sources also reference the unrelated Suraj Lama missing case, where a Division Bench expressed displeasure over forensic delays in identifying a body potentially linked to the deported Indian citizen. While granting two weeks for reports, the court lamented societal failures: "This is a man, who was brought from Kuwait, alive and well and within a few days, we made sure that he is no more." This habeas corpus matter [WP(Crl.) 1421/2025] highlights broader investigative delays but does not intersect with the Sabarimala proceedings.)

Legal Implications and Analysis

The hearings illuminate a critical schism in Indian law governing religious endowments. The Devaswom Manual, promulgated under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, imposes duties on board officials but lacks teeth—breaches invite only internal discipline, not prosecution. Justice Badharudeen's analysis pivots on this: while an office order or manual vests duties, criminal liability arises when dereliction facilitates offenses like cheating (IPC Section 420) or breach of trust (IPC Section 405). "Violation, then go for criminal offence. Means criminal offence is also attracted where violation is also to be found. There lies the significance," he observed.

This aligns with precedents like State of Maharashtra v. Marzia Ali (SC, 2022), where fiduciary lapses in public trusts triggered IPC liability. A new statute could codify such duties, imposing mandatory reporting, audits, and penalties (e.g., 7-10 years' imprisonment for misappropriation), mirroring the Waqf Act, 1995, for Muslim endowments. It might also integrate PMLA thresholds, easing ED interventions.

For prosecutors, this shifts strategy from relying on general IPC provisions to specialized ones, proving mens rea via manual non-compliance as circumstantial evidence. Defense counsel, conversely, must navigate heightened scrutiny, emphasizing lack of direct intent.

Potential Ramifications for Legal Practice and Policy

The court's proactive stance could reshape legal practice in religious property disputes. Devaswom boards and similar bodies (e.g., Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department) may seek preemptive compliance advice, spurring a niche in endowment lawyering. Bail hearings, as here, will increasingly weigh custodial excesses against probe progress, per CrPC Section 437 guidelines—Padmakumar's 52 days and Babu's 81 already test "reasonable" detention limits.

Policy-wise, the ADGP's recommended dialogue with the Secretary could fast-track a bill, especially amid national temple reform discourses (e.g., post-Tirumala gold smuggling exposes). If enacted, it would deter "insider" crimes, protecting assets worth billions and bolstering federalism in cultural governance. For the justice system, it promises swifter accountability, reducing case backlogs from diluted charges.

Yet, challenges loom: Balancing autonomy of religious bodies with state oversight risks politicization, as seen in the CBI plea opposition.

Conclusion

As orders on the bail pleas remain reserved, the Kerala High Court's clarion call for a 'Kerala State Devaswom Properties Protection and Preservation Act' resonates beyond Sabarimala. By spotlighting the perils of inadequate safeguards, Justice Badharudeen has catalyzed a discourse on fortifying India's spiritual treasures against avarice. Legal professionals must now advocate for this evolution, ensuring that duty to the divine translates into unassailable public trust. In an era of escalating misappropriation tales, such reform is not merely desirable but imperative for justice's sanctity.