The Kerala High Court, while hearing bail pleas in the Sabarimala gold theft case, suggested that the State enact a special law with penal provisions to protect Devaswom and temple properties. The Court said existing manuals only lead to disciplinary action and are not enough to curb repeated misappropriation of temple assets.
The Kerala High Court on Monday, while hearing bail pleas in the Sabarimala gold theft case, suggested that the Kerala government should consider bringing a special law with strict penal provisions to protect properties belonging to Hindu temples.
The observation was made by Justice A Badharudeen during the hearing of bail applications filed by some of the accused in the case.
The Court indicated that the State could think about enacting a “Kerala State Devaswom Property Protection and Preservation Act” to deal with the increasing incidents of misappropriation of temple assets.
Addressing Additional Director General of Prosecution Gracious Kuriakose, the Judge said,
“You should have a specific statute … Many cases are coming and it shall have the duty to protect the Devaswom properties for the interest of believers. For that, there must be an enactment, in my view. That is only I’m pointing out because you are ADGP, you can suggest to the government,”.
Justice Badharudeen also noted that the existing Devaswom Manual and internal temple guidelines were insufficient, as violations usually resulted only in disciplinary action and not criminal prosecution. Emphasising the need for a proper statutory framework with penal consequences, the Judge observed,
“Why can’t you go for some rules? Devaswom Management rules, so that some penal provisions can also be incorporated. Why don’t you enact a Kerala State’s Devaswom Property Protection and Preservation Act? Various instances in temples are coming with a history of misappropriation. You may think of legislation. (Devaswom) Manual by itself may not be enough … Violation of the manual will only lead to disciplinary action, not an offence,”.
These observations were made while the Court was hearing bail pleas filed by Karnataka-based jeweller Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan, former Travancore Devaswom Board President and senior CPI(M) leader A Padmakumar, and former TDB administrative officer B Murari Babu.
All three are accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case relating to alleged misappropriation of gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and the door frames of the Sreekovil at the Sabarimala temple.
According to the prosecution, the gold on these temple properties was found to be around four kilograms lighter after the items were returned to the temple following repair works. The prime accused in the case is Unnikrishnan Potti, who had sponsored the repair work.
It has been alleged that Potti gained access to the gold due to irregularities committed by officials of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who were later arrayed as accused along with him.
Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu, appearing for Padmakumar and Govardhan, argued that the allegation against Padmakumar was only a violation of the Devaswom Manual. He submitted that Padmakumar had mistakenly mentioned “copper plates” instead of “gold-clad copper plates” in official records, and such an error could not be treated as a criminal offence.
The Court, however, was not fully convinced and questioned whether misuse of an official position entrusted to a TDB official could attract criminal liability.
The Judge acknowledged the legal position by stating,
“Mere violation of the manual doesn’t by itself make an offence,”.
However, he immediately added a crucial clarification,
“But when a duty is bestowed … by getting such an assignment and then doing a criminal act in dereliction of the order, instead of performing the duty assigned, then that becomes an offence.”.
Justice Badharudeen further remarked,
“To commit a crime, a person need not be clever, but when someone does not want to get caught, they will be clever.”
Govardhan’s counsel argued that his client had no role in the alleged misappropriation and had only paid for the restoration work. It was also pointed out that Govardhan was a regular donor to the temple and a devoted follower of Lord Ayyappa.
The senior counsel alleged that the Special Investigation Team had visited Govardhan’s shop and residence on October 24, 2025, and forcefully seized 474.97 grams of 24-karat imported gold.
It was further submitted that both Govardhan and Padmakumar had cooperated with the investigation and were entitled to bail despite being in custody.
Advocate S Rajeev, appearing for Murari Babu, informed the Court that his client had already spent 81 days in custody and that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.
The State, however, opposed the bail pleas, with the ADGP arguing against granting relief to all three accused. During the hearing, the Court also strongly criticised the Travancore Devaswom Board for allegedly allowing prime accused Unnikrishnan Potti to handle temple properties in violation of the Devaswom Manual.
The Court further expressed displeasure over the Special Investigation Team’s failure to arrest Devaswom Board member KP Shankardas, who is reportedly hospitalised.
Reacting sharply to the overall situation, the Judge orally remarked,
“What nonsense is happening in this State?”.
After hearing all sides, the Kerala High Court reserved its verdict on the bail pleas filed by Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan, A Padmakumar and B Murari Babu in the Sabarimala gold theft case.
Case Title:
Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v State of Kerala and connected cases
Read More Reports On Sabarimala Gold Theft Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
