Back
Dismisses K. Surendran's Plea Over Sabarimala Vigilance Team Change as
A Apprehension
The on Thursday closed a filed by BJP leader K. Surendran, who sought directions to prevent the replacement of the at Sabarimala during the ongoing probe into the gold theft cases. A comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar found the petitioner's apprehension "," noting that the Court had already issued specific directions regarding the team's composition.
The Background of the Gold Theft Probe
The case stems from an alleged gold theft, loss, and misappropriation at the Sabarimala temple, prompting a detailed investigation by the . In a (SSCR No. 21/2026), the High Court had been monitoring the extension of tenure of officers in the vigilance team. On , the Court recorded the government's decision to extend the tenure of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer and other team members until , and also directed the appointment of a Sub-Inspector.
The Plea and the News Report
Mr. Surendran, claiming to be a Hindu devotee and follower of Lord Ayyappa, approached the Court after seeing a news article in a Malayalam daily dated . The article alleged that the State Police Chief was intending to replace the vigilance team members despite the High Court's specific directions. The petitioner argued that any change at this crucial stage would derail the investigation. He sought a direction to maintain the existing composition and continuity of the team until the filing of final reports in the gold theft cases.
Court's Monitoring and Directions
However, the Court clarified that it had already addressed these concerns. In its earlier orders in SSCR No. 21/2026, it had issued specific directions extending the tenure of officers till and for the appointment of one Sub-Inspector. The Court noted that orders in tune with these directions had also been issued. Therefore, it concluded that the petitioner's fear of a unilateral replacement was unfounded.
Key Observations
"This Court has been monitoring the extension of tenure of the officers in the Devaswom Vigilance, and specific directions have been issued in SSCR No. 21 of 2026 with regard to the extension of the tenure of officers till
and the appointment of one Sub-Inspector. Orders in tune with the directions have also been issued. In view of the above, we are of the view that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is
,"
the Bench observed.
Conclusion
With these observations, the Court closed the , effectively upholding the existing arrangements for the vigilance team. The decision reinforces the High Court's active role in ensuring the continuity and integrity of the investigation into the Sabarimala gold theft, while dismissing what it considered an unnecessary legal challenge based on media speculation.
