Kerala High Court Widens SIT Probe into Sabarimala Gold Loss, Citing "Substantial" Discrepancies

KOCHI, KERALA – In a significant expansion of judicial oversight, the Kerala High Court has directed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to widen its probe into alleged gold misappropriation at the Sabarimala temple. The investigation, which initially centered on discrepancies in the weight of gold-clad 'Dwarapalaka' (guardian deity) idols, will now encompass the sideframes and lintels of the temple's Sreekovil (sanctum sanctorum).

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, took this step after a report from the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer revealed potential wrongdoing beyond the scope of the original inquiry. The Court's order underscores a deepening probe into the handling of temple assets and highlights the judiciary's proactive role in ensuring accountability in the administration of religious institutions.

Broadening the Investigative Mandate

The Court's decision, issued on Friday, October 10, came after reviewing the progress of the investigation it had previously mandated. The SIT, headed by S. Sasidharan, Assistant Director of the Kerala Police Academy, and operating under the supervision of ADGP Crime Branch H. Venkatesh, was constituted during a prior hearing to look into an approximate 4kg reduction in the gold weight of the Dwarapalaka idols.

The latest report, however, pointed to new areas of concern. The Bench observed:

"From the investigation so far conducted, it appears that in so far as sideframes/lintel, similar misappropriation of gold has been carried out. It is also revealed from the report that substantial quantity of gold, amounting about 474.9 gm, was handed over directly to Sri. Unnikrishnan Potti. The records do not reveal that the aforesaid quantity of gold was entrusted with the Travancore Devaswom Board."

This finding was critical, as it suggests a pattern of alleged mismanagement and a lack of procedural adherence in handling precious offerings. The Court has now formally directed that "the aforesaid aspects are also to be investigated by the SIT in addition to all other aspects which may come up in the course of investigation." Furthermore, the Bench has granted the SIT the discretion to determine if separate criminal cases should be registered for the discrepancies related to the Dwarapalaka idols and the newly identified issues with the lintels.

Strict Judicial Supervision and Procedural Directives

The High Court is maintaining an exceptionally high degree of control over the investigation, a move that legal experts see as a measure to ensure its integrity and impartiality. The Court has ordered the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to immediately forward the vigilance report to the State Police Chief, who in turn must direct ADGP Venkatesh to register a crime and proceed with the investigation according to law.

Setting a firm timeline, the Court has mandated the SIT to submit a comprehensive report within six weeks. To ensure continuous monitoring, the Bench has also instituted a system of bi-weekly status reports to be filed in a sealed cover.

In a move to safeguard evidence, the Court has taken the unusual step of ordering copies of all seized records to be submitted to the Registrar General for safekeeping. This directive, which originally pertained to the Dwarapalaka idols, has now been extended to all documents related to the sideframes and other matters under investigation. The Court noted, "...all the records which have been seized, copy of all the records to be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court for safe custody."

Caution Against Media Sensationalism and Upholding Fair Trial Rights

In a notable addendum to its order, the Division Bench addressed the issue of media reporting surrounding the case. Expressing concern over "contradictory and false media reports," the Court imposed a strict prohibition on the investigating officers, ordering them to refrain from any interaction with the public or the media until the probe is complete.

The Bench articulated a careful balance between the public's right to information and an individual's right to a fair trial, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.

"However, what we have come to note is that people who have only fleeting acquaintance into the matters are being interviewed by the media and contradictory reports are being placed... We exhort the media to refrain from sensationalising the entire issue until the entire truth of the matter is revealed by the diligent and senior officers," the Court stated.

After pronouncing the order, the Bench made an oral remark reinforcing this position: "We have requested the media to just show some...just let these people do the work...Whatever we mentioned is based on the records which are available and the statements before this Court...this man is entitled to a fair trial." This judicial caution serves as a potent reminder of the potential for pre-trial publicity to prejudice legal proceedings.

Background of the Suo Motu Proceedings

The case, titled Suo Motu v State of Kerala (SSCR 23/ 2025), was initiated by the High Court based on a report from its appointed Special Commissioner for Sabarimala. The initial report flagged irregularities when the gold-clad copper coverings of the Dwarapalaka idols were removed for electroplating work without prior intimation to the Court.

The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) had contracted with Smart Creations (8th respondent) for the work, which was sponsored by a devotee, Unnikrishnan Potty (7th respondent). The Court's preliminary inquiries had revealed that the idols, after being handed over to Mr. Potty in 2019, had lost approximately 4kg of gold. This discovery prompted the Court to implead the State Police Chief and constitute the SIT, setting the stage for the current, expanded criminal investigation.

The legal community is closely watching this case, not only for its implications on the administration of the Sabarimala temple but also as a case study in the exercise of suo motu powers, active judicial supervision of a police investigation, and the delicate balance between media freedom and the imperatives of a fair and impartial legal process.