Sabarimala Gold Theft: High Court Grants Interim Protection to Former Devaswom Officer

KOCHI – The Kerala High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to S. Sreekumar, a former Administrative Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the sixth accused in the high-profile Sabarimala gold theft case. The order, passed by Justice A. Badharudeen, provides temporary relief to the ex-official amid a widening probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the misappropriation of nearly four kilograms of gold from the revered hill shrine.

The case, which has sent shockwaves through the state's administrative and political circles, revolves around alleged irregularities during the repair and re-plating of gold coverings on the temple’s Dwarapalaka (door guardian) idols and door frames. Sreekumar’s anticipatory bail plea (Bail Appl. 13782/2025) brings to the forefront critical legal questions about official liability, criminal conspiracy, and the scope of pre-arrest protection in cases involving significant public interest and alleged corruption.

The interim protection was granted until November 28, when the matter is scheduled for further hearing, after the Additional Director General of Prosecution requested an adjournment. This decision provides a temporary shield for Sreekumar, preventing his immediate arrest while the court examines the merits of his plea against the backdrop of an intensifying SIT investigation.

Background of the Allegations and the Expanding Probe

The investigation was initiated after a significant quantity of gold was found missing from the temple's sacred ornaments following renovation work. The prime accused, Unnikrishnan Potti, had secured permission to sponsor and oversee the repair works. He is alleged to have misappropriated the gold during this process. The theft was discovered when the gold-plated copper plates were measured after the work was completed. Authorities later claimed to have recovered a portion of the missing gold from the residence of Potti's sister.

The High Court's Devaswom Bench had previously expressed serious concerns about the integrity of the temple's administration, noting that such a "deceitful scheme" could not have been executed without internal complicity. In a crucial directive, the Bench ordered the SIT to investigate a "larger conspiracy" and determine if offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , would be attracted against TDB officials. This broadened the investigation's scope from a simple theft to a complex case of potential white-collar crime and corruption within a statutory body.

The probe has already led to the arrests of several high-profile individuals, including former TDB President and CPI(M) leader A. Padmakumar, and another former president, N. Vasu. The SIT, led by ADGP H. Venkatesh, is also reportedly examining the potential involvement of senior government figures from that period, with the opposition demanding an inquiry into the role of the then Devaswom Minister, Kadakampally Surendran.

Sreekumar's Defense: A Question of Timing and Authority

In his petition for anticipatory bail, Sreekumar, represented by Advocates Renjith B. Mararar and Keshavraj Nair, has mounted a defense centered on his limited role and the timing of his tenure. He is accused of offences under Sections 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 403 (Dishonest Misappropriation of Property), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 409 (Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant), and 467 (Forgery of Valuable Security) read with Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Sreekumar's primary legal argument is that he was not in a position of authority when the key decisions were made. The plea asserts that the resolution to remove and re-plate the gold-covered items was taken before he assumed the role of Administrative Officer. He further contends that preparatory acts, such as drafting the mahazars for the removal of the mouldings, were handled by his predecessor, Murrari Babu.

"In his plea, Sreekumar has stated that the decision to remove gold-plated copper plates from the Dwarapalaka idols and to re-plate the gold-plated copper mouldings were taken prior to his taking charge," a key excerpt from the source material reveals.

He claims to have had no authority over the custody or handling of the valuables and argues that he acted in good faith, merely following the instructions of his superiors without knowledge of the materials' true nature or any illicit scheme. This defense attempts to sever the chain of command and criminal liability, placing the onus on those who held office before him and those in superior positions. This line of argument will be critically tested by the prosecution, which will likely argue that as the administrative officer on site, he held a duty of care and oversight that was allegedly breached.

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

The High Court's decision to grant interim protection is significant. Such orders are typically issued when the court believes custodial interrogation may not be immediately necessary, or to prevent potential abuse of power during the investigative stage. Sreekumar is not the only official to receive such relief; former TDB Secretary S. Jayasree has also been granted interim protection, suggesting the court is carefully weighing the prima facie evidence against each accused official before permitting arrests.

The case is at a critical juncture. The SIT's six-week deadline, set by the High Court on October 6, is nearing its end. The investigation team has intensified its efforts, recording statements from the Sabarimala tantris (chief priests), Kandararu Rajeevaru and Kandararu Mohanaru. The priests have reportedly stated that they only granted ritualistic approval for minor repairs at the temple premises based on requests from Devaswom officials and never authorized the transportation of idols or gold panels to an external location like Chennai.

Furthermore, the SIT is awaiting a crucial forensic analysis report of samples collected from the gold-plated items. This report will be vital in establishing whether the original temple gold was replaced with inferior material, a finding that could fundamentally alter the direction and gravity of the case.

As the SIT prepares to submit its next interim report to the court, the legal community is watching closely. The proceedings will not only determine the fate of the accused individuals, including Sreekumar, but also set important precedents regarding the accountability of officials managing religious endowments. The court's handling of the interplay between the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act in this context will be particularly instructive for future cases involving public servants in quasi-governmental bodies. The unfolding investigation promises to reveal the extent of the rot, potentially implicating more senior figures and testing the resolve of the state's legal and administrative systems.