Kerala HC Rejects Vigilance Closure Bid in Sabarimala Ghee Misappropriation Case, Orders Senior Officer Re-Evaluation

The Kerala High Court found the Vigilance Bureau's recommendation to drop charges against 41 of 43 accused incongruous with its own findings of entrustment and loss, and directed a fresh independent re-evaluation within four weeks.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, on 9 June 2026 declined to accept the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau's recommendation to treat the Sabarimala Abhisheka Neyy Prasadam misappropriation case as “Further Action Dropped” against 41 of 43 accused. The Bench found the recommendation internally inconsistent: the Vigilance had itself concluded that ghee packets were entrusted to counter staff, that those staff were duty-bound to account for the proceeds, and that they failed to do so — yet sought closure on the ground that exact individual quantities could not be determined. The Court directed the matter to be re-entrusted to a senior officer of proven competence and integrity for an independent re-evaluation, with a comprehensive report to be placed before the Court by 15 July 2026.

The Audit Report and What It Found at Sabarimala

The proceedings arise from a Special Interim Report filed by the Joint Director of the Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit Wing. The report covered the verification of Abhisheka Neyy Prasadam — also referred to as Adiya Sishtam Neyy — during the 1201 M.E. Mandalam and Makaravilakku Festivals at Sabarimala.

The audit party detected serious irregularities in the accounting process at two ghee collection centres. No volumetric measurement of ghee was undertaken at any stage: collection, filtration, or post-filtration. The audit findings disclosed systemic deficiencies in the collection, processing, and accounting of ghee, raising concerns about the accuracy and transparency of the entire process.

Separately, in SSCR No. 3 of 2026, the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, placed before the Court allegations of large-scale misappropriation at the Ghee Sale Counter at Sannidhanam. Read together with the audit findings, the Court found the combined picture to be of considerable seriousness.

Court-Directed Investigation and the Vigilance Report

By a detailed order dated 13 January 2026, the Division Bench directed the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer to forward a complaint dated 10 January 2026 to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Court further directed the Director to constitute a team of upright, competent, and experienced officers and to initiate steps for registration of a crime on the basis of that complaint. A special investigation team was initially constituted under the leadership of a Superintendent of Police, who subsequently superannuated from service. The present investigation report was submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta Unit.

When the matter came up on 29 May 2026, the Deputy Superintendent placed a detailed investigation report before the Court. The Vigilance concluded that the Travancore Devaswom Board suffered a loss of ₹17,14,460 on account of misappropriation in the sale of Abhisheka Neyy Prasadam through four counters at Sannidhanam during the period from 17 November 2025 to 27 December 2025.

The crime had been registered for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The 43 accused comprised Temple Special Officers (Accused Nos. 1 to 3), an Executive Officer (Accused No. 4), and counter staff referred to as Santhis (Accused Nos. 5 to 43).

The prescribed procedure required the movement and distribution of packed ghee — produced in a mechanised packing unit and entrusted to Temple Special Officers — to be documented through two records: the Temple Charge Mahazar (Charge Handover Mahazar) and the Ghee Mahazar Book. Counter staff received ghee packets and recorded them in a register called the “Kutti Book”. Ticket sales were to be recorded in the Ticket Stock Register. After sales, counter staff were required to remit daily collections to the bank and account for the proceeds.

The Vigilance confirmed, on the basis of Kutti Book entries, that ghee packets were in fact entrusted to counter staff by the Temple Special Officers. The Challan Counter Sign Register and Duty Detailing Statement established the deployment of Accused Nos. 5 to 43 at the relevant counters during the period in question. The Vigilance also confirmed that counter staff were under a duty to account for the ghee received and that there was dereliction of that duty.

Despite these findings, the Vigilance recommended that the matter be treated as “Further Action Dropped” against Accused Nos. 1 to 43, except Accused No. 3, Aneesh M.T., and Accused No. 14, Sunil Kumar K.R. The stated reason was that the exact quantity of ghee packets entrusted to each individual employee could not be determined. The Vigilance recommended departmental action under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960 and recovery of the loss from all 43 employees collectively.

Why the Bench Found the Recommendation Incongruous

The Division Bench examined the investigation report carefully and identified a fundamental tension in its reasoning. The Vigilance had itself recorded findings of entrustment of property, a corresponding duty to account, failure to discharge that duty, and a consequential monetary loss. Having arrived at those findings, the recommendation to close the criminal case on the ground that exact individual quantities could not be fixed appeared, in the Court's view, prima facie incongruous with the nature of the findings recorded.

The Bench also observed that the tenor of the report appeared to treat the entire matter as one of administrative lapses arising from defective record maintenance, minimising the significance of the findings on entrustment, accountability, and loss. The Court was unable to accept that approach.

The investigation had been directed not merely to identify administrative failures but to ascertain the causes and circumstances of the ₹17,14,460 loss, the systemic deficiencies that enabled it, and the persons responsible. The Court noted that the irregularities were alleged to extend beyond the period from 17 November 2025 to 27 December 2025 and to have existed both before and after that window.

The Bench held that where investigation reveals substantial monetary loss, unexplained deficiencies in accounting, entrustment of property, and failure to account for the same, a deeper examination is imperative to determine whether the facts attract the ingredients of the penal provisions originally invoked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The persons involved had been confirmed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, entrusted with fiduciary responsibilities over temple funds and offerings at one of the most significant pilgrimage centres in the country.

Direction for Independent Re-Evaluation

The Court directed the additional 7th respondent in SSCR No. 3 of 2026 to forthwith entrust the entire matter, together with all records and materials collected during the investigation, to a senior officer of proven competence, integrity, and experience. That officer is required to independently examine the entire records, re-evaluate the findings in the present report, and place a comprehensive report before the Court indicating whether offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are made out against any of the accused persons.

Order

The Division Bench directed the re-evaluation report to be placed before the Court within four weeks. The matter has been posted for 15 July 2026.