The Rs 17 lakh loss at the Sabarimala Adiyashishtam Ghee sales counter was the result of serious carelessness in handling, not proven intentional misappropriation, the Kerala High Court noted, accepting the vigilance report closing the criminal case while ordering sweeping systemic reforms and urging the Devaswom Board to bring in professional managers.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has accepted a vigilance report finding that the loss of about Rs 17.14 lakh in the sale of “Adiyashishtam Ghee” packets at Sabarimala during the 2025-26 Mandala-Makaravilakku season was attributable to serious carelessness in the handling of the ghee, rather than to proven intentional misappropriation by the staff, and that no individual criminal liability could presently be fixed. While permitting the criminal case to be closed, the Court ordered a detailed Standard Operating Procedure and a series of systemic reforms, and urged the Travancore Devaswom Board to engage professionally-qualified managers to run its operations.
The Devaswom Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the order in proceedings arising from a Special Commissioner’s report on the alleged misappropriation at the ghee sales counter.
The background
The matter arose after the Special Commissioner reported alleged misappropriation at the Ghee Sales Counter, and the State Audit Department’s audit revealed a loss of Rs 17,14,460 to the Travancore Devaswom Board during the verification of Adiyashishtam Neyy Prasadam at the Mandalam and Makaravilakku festivals. The High Court had earlier ordered the registration of a vigilance case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and an investigation by a Special Investigation Team of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.
After an initial report recommended dropping the criminal proceedings while pursuing disciplinary action, the Court, in June 2026, took the view that the matter required further reassessment and directed that the investigation be entrusted to a senior officer of proven integrity. It is that fresh, detailed report that the Court considered in the present order.
‘Carelessness, not intentional misappropriation’
The reinvestigation concluded that the loss during the period from November 16 to December 27, 2025, was “not solely the result of intentional misappropriation” by any of the employees on counter duty, but was attributable to serious carelessness in the handling of the various processes relating to the production, storage, transit, distribution and sale of the ghee. No dishonest intention, the report found, could be attributed to any individual counter sales staff, and reliance could only be placed on the available audit records, which themselves contained internal discrepancies.
On the available material, the report stated that it was not possible to conclude that the arrayed accused (except one, accused No. 14) had misappropriated the sale proceeds, and that there were no materials to establish any conspiracy among the packing contractor, counter sales staff, Temple Special Officers and the Executive Officer to misappropriate Devaswom funds, so as to proceed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. There had, nevertheless, been a real loss of public money; while some public servants might be responsible for the lapses, their individual criminal responsibility, the quantum of any gain, and the exact time and place of the acts could not be ascertained on the present material.
The Court recorded striking findings on why the system had failed. Of the 39 counter sales staff deployed, ten had entered service only in November 2025 and were posted to the counters in the very month they joined, “wholly inexperienced” in their responsibilities; one of the three Temple Special Officers had just five months’ service; and most senior officers in managerial positions had entered service as last-grade employees and risen purely through length of service. “Unless the supervisory positions are manned by officers possessing the necessary managerial capacity, experience and vision,” the Court observed, “incidents of this nature are likely to recur,” adding that the maintenance of accounts, registers and records at Sannidhanam “leaves much to be desired.”
Sweeping systemic reforms ordered
Emphasising the need for a clearly defined system of responsibility, supervision, verification and accountability at every stage, the Court reiterated a detailed set of measures it had directed the Board to implement. These included clearly defining and documenting the duties and accountability of all personnel; issuing formal proceedings specifying each staff member’s exact duty periods and counters; certified stock handovers at every shift change; comprehensive computerisation of the preparation, storage, accounting and sale of offerings; packing machines with digital displays and every packet carrying a batch number, packing date and a unique QR code for traceability; replacement of an unauthenticated storage tank with a properly calibrated container; upgrades to the booking portals to create an auditable digital trail identifying the counter and staff for each transaction; and high-definition CCTV at all counters with footage preserved for at least ninety days.
The Court directed the Board to formulate a detailed Standard Operating Procedure incorporating these directions and the Executive Officer’s own suggestions, clearly defining duties at each stage with mechanisms for supervision, stock verification, accounting, digital tracking and accountability, and to place it before the Court within three weeks.
‘Bring in professional managers’
Accepting the vigilance report dated September 22, 2026, and permitting the criminal case to be closed, the Court held that the conduct of the officials, “though serious in nature,” was insufficient to warrant criminal prosecution, as individual responsibility and the precise mode of the loss could not be fixed. It clarified, however, that the Travancore Devaswom Board “may consider” initiating disciplinary proceedings against all the employees arrayed as accused and taking measures to recoup the loss.
In a notable set of concluding observations, the Court urged a fundamental rethink of how Sabarimala is administered. Noting that more than a lakh devotees congregate at Sannidhanam every day during the season, and that the Devaswom must manage crowd control, accommodation, food, offerings, procurement, storage, sanitation, health, safety and financial administration on an enormous scale, the Court said such a complex system “cannot be effectively managed merely through conventional administrative arrangements without adequate professional expertise and modern management practices.” It observed that many in managerial positions had reached them through seniority rather than “demonstrable managerial or supervisory expertise,” and that it was “high time” the Board reviewed its structure and considered engaging, at least on a contractual basis, professionals with managerial, administrative, technical and supervisory skills. The Court also suggested the Board consider obtaining the services of a management institute, such as the Indian Institute of Management, to train its senior officers in managerial supervision, financial accountability and process management. The matter was posted to October 23, 2026.
Why the order matters
The order is a significant example of a constitutional court moving beyond the question of individual criminal culpability to address the systemic failures that allow public money to be lost. Faced with a vigilance conclusion that carelessness rather than provable dishonesty caused the loss, and that individual criminal liability could not be fixed, the Court did not simply close the file; it treated the episode as a symptom of deeper institutional weakness, inexperienced staff at sensitive posts, poor record-keeping, unverifiable storage, and managers elevated by seniority rather than competence, and directed a concrete, technology-driven accountability framework to prevent recurrence.
Equally notable is the Court’s candid call for professionalising temple administration. Sabarimala is among the largest managed pilgrimages in the world, and the Court’s view that its scale demands specialised managerial expertise, digital systems and trained personnel, rather than conventional seniority-based administration, reflects a broader theme in the governance of major religious and public institutions. By keeping disciplinary action and loss-recovery open while insisting on an SOP and a structural review, and by seeking the Board’s response by the next date, the Court has sought to convert a specific vigilance failure into lasting administrative reform, without adopting any position on matters of faith or worship, which are not what this order concerns.
Case Title: In re Sabarimala Special Commissioner Report No. 3 of 2026 and Devaswom Board Audit Report No. 1 of 2026
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, High Court of Kerala (Devaswom Bench)
Date of Order: September 23, 2026
Next Listed: October 23, 2026