Divine Trust Betrayed: Kerala High Court Denies Bail in Sabarimala Ghee Scam

In a significant ruling addressing financial irregularities at the Sabarimala temple, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has denied an anticipatory bail plea filed by an employee accused of involvement in a major ghee misappropriation scandal. Justice A. Badharudeen underscored the necessity of custodial interrogation, noting the prima facie evidence of organized financial deceit involving the proceeds of ‘Aadiya Shishttam Neyyu.’

The Shadow Over the Sanctuary

The case, stemming from Crime No. 2/2026 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Pathanamthitta, centers on allegations of large-scale financial misappropriation during the 2025-26 Mandala-Makaravilakku season. Investigations, prompted by a suo motu report from the Devaswom Special Commissioner, revealed a staggering shortfall in ghee packets and cash remittances across several counters. Audit reports suggested that while devotees were charged ₹100 per packet, a significant portion of these proceeds never reached the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) accounts.

Arguments from the Bench and Bar

The petitioner, Jithusooraj S.K. (Accused No. 31), a 28-year-old part-time ‘Santhi’ (priest) appointed as counter staff, argued that the sheer volume of pilgrims and the ensuing chaos at the counters made it nearly impossible to verify tickets and cash accurately. His counsel maintained that no specific individual allegation of theft existed against him, branding his inclusion as an accused as incidental to the systemic failure of the TDB management.

Conversely, the Special Public Prosecutor for the VACB argued that the petitioner was directly responsible for the sale of ghee at the Maramath-II counter. Providing a detailed breakdown of duty shifts and sales records, the prosecution demonstrated that during the petitioner’s tenure, a significant quantity of ghee was sold for which no funds were remitted, totaling alleged misappropriations of over ₹1 lakh.

The Court’s Reasoning

Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the scale of the financial loss—calculated at over ₹36 lakh across the accused persons—required a deep dive into the modus operandi of the alleged offenders. The court explicitly rejected the petitioner’s claim of innocence, citing prima facie evidence linking his active duty times to the documented shortfalls.

The Court held that the lack of clear accountability protocols, while a failure of administration, did not provide a legal shield for individuals who allegedly exploited the vacuum for personal gain.

Key Observations

The High Court’s order contained stark observations regarding the sanctity of the duty entrusted to Temple staff:

> "The prosecution records reveal the role of the petitioner in this misappropriation, prima facie. In such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation, recovery of the money misappropriated, and how it was utilised, are absolutely necessary to accomplish eventful prosecution."

> "The accused persons are collectively responsible for the aforesaid misappropriation; however, the individual liability of the petitioner can be determined only upon a detailed assessment."

The Verdict and Its Impact

Finding no merit in the anticipatory bail application, Justice Badharudeen dismissed the petition. The Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer, making it clear that failure to do so would trigger immediate legal action.

This ruling serves as a stern reminder of the legal consequences for public servants entrusted with fiduciary duties in religious institutions. For the Travancore Devaswom Board, it marks a critical step toward internal accountability, as the court-monitored investigation continues to unravel the extent of the administrative and criminal lapses observed during the high-footfall pilgrimage season.