Disposing of a devotee’s petition over jaggery bearing a Halal certification mark that was supplied for the preparation of Sabarimala prasadam, the Kerala High Court has found that the jaggery passed quality tests and was not unsuitable for use, but has said that the Travancore Devaswom Board should have taken greater care over markings that could give rise to an apprehension of conflict with the Temple’s customs, and has directed it to build suitable conditions into its tender documents.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has disposed of a writ petition by a devotee of Lord Ayyappa challenging the procurement by the Travancore Devaswom Board of jaggery bearing a Halal certification label for the preparation of Aravana, Unniyappam and other prasadam at Sabarimala Temple, directing the Board to exercise due care and caution in future and to incorporate appropriate conditions in its e-tender documents [S.J.R. Kumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar delivered the judgment on September 29, 2026 in W.P. (C) No. 25645 of 2021, authored by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
The petitioner’s case
The petitioner, who is 67 years old, argued that using jaggery that, in his view, is prepared according to the religious practices of another religion, and offering it to the deity, would seriously violate the customs and rituals followed at the Temple from time immemorial, and that spoiled jaggery powder would pose a health hazard to devotees. He also contended that the Commissioner of Food Safety had set up testing laboratory facilities at Pamba, yet the Board bought Halal-certified jaggery, and that the tenderer supplied spurious jaggery in plastic bags in breach of the conditions of the e-tender.
He sought directions that only Satwik and pure materials of high quality be used for Nivedyam and Prasadam, that the jaggery be confiscated so that it is not sold or distributed to the public, and that an enquiry be held into the alleged violation of the tender conditions.
Background of the case
The petition was filed on November 17, 2021, on which date the Court directed the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, to submit a report and the respondents to file counter affidavits. According to the Board, the 2019-20 contract for jaggery went to Vardhan Agro Processing Limited, Maharashtra, which supplied 19,96,034 kg, of which 16,59,094 kg was used. Because of COVID-19 restrictions, fewer devotees were permitted and the demand for Aravana and Appam fell. Samples of the remaining stock tested at the Government Analyst’s Laboratory in April 2021 were found satisfactory, but samples taken in September 2021 from the old stock were found unsuitable for Vazhipadu.
The Board said that about 3.37 lakh kg of old stock was auctioned to Southern Agro Tech India Pvt Ltd, Thrissur, under an auction notice that stated it was not suitable for Vazhipadu, and that the bar on sale applied only to articles meant for human consumption. For 2021, the supply contract was awarded to S.P. Sugar and Agro Private Limited, the lowest bidder.
The Halal label
The Board stated that a few packets in the 2019 supply carried a Halal label, and that the supplier, which exports jaggery, explained that Halal certification is required for export to Arab countries and was obtained for that purpose as an assurance of compliance with quality standards. The Special Commissioner’s clarification report said the Board’s Chief Vigilance Officer had visited the factory during the tender process and was given the same explanation.
The designated Food Safety Officer reported that a Halal declaration on the packaging does not contravene the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Board also said that all stock received at Pamba is tested by the Food Safety Department and accepted only after clearance, and that jaggery powder is packed in food-grade plastic to prevent fermentation.
Quality satisfactory, but greater care expected
The Bench examined the analysis reports of the Pamba laboratory, which tested parameters including moisture content, total sugar and invert sugar, and found that the jaggery supplied by Vardhan Agro Processing Limited was satisfactory. It noted that the jaggery was procured through an e-tender in which that company emerged as the L1 bidder, and that the Halal marking appeared on the packaging because of the company’s exports. Even so, the Bench said:
“Ideally, the Travancore Devaswom Board ought to have exercised greater care to ensure that the quantity of jaggery supplied by the manufacturer did not bear symbols, markings or declarations that could give rise to an apprehension of conflict with the religious customs and practices followed at the Temple.”
Directions to the Board
The Bench held, however, that the testing did not reveal any substance or element that would make the jaggery unsuitable for preparing prasadam. Considering the Board’s stand, the material on record, the results of quality testing by the competent authorities and the Board’s undertaking that greater care will be exercised in future, it disposed of the petition with a direction that the Board must exercise due care and caution in future and incorporate appropriate and necessary conditions in the e-tender documents, so that the materials procured for Nivedyam and Prasadam conform to the prescribed quality standards as well as to the religious customs and requirements applicable to the Temple.
Why The Sabarimala Prasadam Ruling Matters
The Court has treated the dispute as one of procurement standards rather than of food safety, accepting the laboratory findings and the Food Safety Officer’s view that the label does not breach the law, while asking the Board to guard against markings that may raise concerns about Temple customs. It has not examined the religious questions the petitioner raised, and its direction is limited to the Board’s tender conditions.
Case Title: S.J.R. Kumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others [W.P. (C) No. 25645 of 2021]
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, Kerala High Court
Date of Judgment: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocates M. K. Sumod, Vidya M. K., Sudhir Nambiar P. V., Rema T. P., Thushara K. and Meera S. Gopan for the petitioner; Standing Counsel G. Biju for the Travancore Devaswom Board; Special Government Pleader K. R. Sunil, Advocates S. A. Anand, O. D. Sivadas, S. Subhash Chand and P. R. Ashok Kumar, and Central Government Counsel Rahul Venugopal for the other respondents