Sabarimala Ashtabhishekam Case: Kerala High Court Seeks 10-Year Record On Conduct Of Major Temple Rituals, Details Of Materials Supplied

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, was considering a suo motu petition initiated based on a report by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner alleging misappropriation of funds by the Administrative Officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) while procuring 3 out of the 8 items required for conducting Ashtabhishekam ritual.

"Accordingly, we direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to place before this Court, within a period of ten days from today, the entire records relating to the conduct of Ashtabhishekam, Mahanivedhyam, Ganapathy Homam and other Vazhipadu for the past ten years. The Board shall also produce complete particulars of the materials allegedly supplied by Sri. Sunil Kumar or any other sponsor like him during the said period, together with all records maintained in connection therewith, including registers, acknowledgments, receipts, stock records, and any other documents evidencing receipt, utilisation, or accounting of such materials". 

The Court had earlier directed the State Audit Department to conduct an audit into the conduct of Ashtabhishekams in Sabarimala temple during the past 10 years.

The court also looked into the allegation that temple officials had been claiming a fixed reimbursement of ₹300 per Ashtabhishekam towards procurement costs without producing supporting bills, vouchers, or purchase records.

In an affidavit filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, it was submitted that a lump sum amount, which is allegedly lower than the prevailing market rate, is paid as material cost for several items and hence there is no requirement to produce purchase bills or vouchers.

The Court rejected the submissions and emphasized that no expenditure of public funds can be recognised without adequate documentary support. It further added that the argument that procurement of bills is not practical cannot be accepted.

“ The assertion that bills and vouchers are not required strikes at the very foundation of sound public financial administration and creates an environment conducive to abuse and fraud. Institutions such as the Travancore Devaswom Board function on the elementary principle that no expenditure of public funds can be recognised without adequate documentary support. The contention that procurement bills are “not practical” is wholly untenable. If adherence to a prescribed procedure presents practical difficulties, the solution lies in designing alternative safeguards that achieve the same objective of accountability and transparency, not in abandoning financial controls altogether.” the Court said.

TDB has also submitted that most of the items required for offerings are perishable in nature and, therefore, have to be procured from locations where such articles are available as and when required.

The Court rejected this argument as well, noting that perishability increases rather than diminishes the need for accountability and record-keeping.

“The fact that an item is perishable does not render documentation impossible. On the contrary, perishability makes proper documentation all the more essential, since the risk of misuse and misappropriation is inherently higher. Even if the argument is accepted at its highest, it would justify only a modification in the timing of documentation and not its complete abandonment. The Board could have devised mechanisms requiring daily procurement with submission of bills within a stipulated period, supported by supplier certification or similar safeguards. None of these elementary safeguards appear to have been implemented.” the Court said.

The Court also examined the alleged long-term supply of pooja materials by one individual, Sunil Kumar alias Sunil Swamy, without transparent procedures or adequate accounting safeguards.

According to the Vigilance report, Sunil Kumar allegedly supplied pooja materials worth approximately ₹3 lakh during monthly poojas and ₹18 lakh during the Mandala-Makaravilakku pilgrimage season. The report further indicated that large quantities of materials, including jaggery, were being stored in premises adjacent to the Administrative Officer's office.

The court noted that mandatory receipts required under Board regulations were allegedly not being issued and that prescribed registers for recording such supplies had not been maintained. It described the continued acceptance of materials from a single individual over several years without proper oversight as a situation creating a substantial risk of corruption and administrative misuse.

The Court had also rejected the Board's claim that special internal orders exempted temple officials from complying with the Kerala Financial Code and procurement norms.

Observing that the Travancore Devaswom Board administers more than 1,250 temples and operates in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of devotees, the court held that transparency, prudence, and accountability cannot be bypassed through internal administrative arrangements.

“The Travancore Devaswom Board stands in a fiduciary relationship with devotees who contribute funds to the temple. A fiduciary institution cannot unilaterally exempt itself from the duties of transparency, prudence, and accountability merely by issuing internal orders.” the Court said.

Even where special procedures exist, the court said, any exemption from standard financial controls must be expressly authorized, documented, auditable, and supported by valid reasons.

The Court expressed concern that temple Administrative Officers were effectively acting as procurement agents while simultaneously handling receipt, storage, verification, and accounting functions.

Such concentration of responsibilities in a single individual, the court observed, violates fundamental accounting principles and creates a systemic risk of fraud, error, and misappropriation.

The Bench also found explanations offered by the Board regarding non-issuance of receipts and non-compliance with existing Board orders to be unsatisfactory, describing them as evidence of a disturbing pattern of systemic non-compliance.

“The absence of formal receipts, despite the existence of a specific Board Order mandating their issuance, demonstrates a disturbing pattern of systemic non compliance with documented procedures.” the court said.

Another allegation highlighted by the vigilance wing was that reimbursement claims were allegedly being made by Administrative Officers for materials that had already been supplied by sponsors such as Sunil Kumar.

The court noted that the Board's affidavit failed to adequately answer whether payments were being made twice for the same materials and observed that no mechanism had been demonstrated to prevent duplicate claims.

The High Court thus directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to place before it, within ten days, complete records relating to major vazhipadus conducted over the last decade for comprehensive examination.

The Board has also been ordered to produce details of all materials supplied by Sunil Kumar and any similar sponsors, along with registers, receipts, acknowledgments, stock records, and other documents showing receipt, utilization, and accounting of such materials.

Additionally, the court has sought details of any independent auditors or external audit agencies engaged by the Board during the period, along with soft copies of audit reports and observations.

The Court has also directed the Audit Department to conduct an independent examination of the records and submit a report assessing whether the Board's procedures are transparent, accountable, auditable, and consistent with accepted principles of financial management applicable to public religious institutions.

The audit report must specifically address whether existing systems contain adequate safeguards to prevent misuse, duplicate claims, revenue loss, misappropriation of funds, and other financial irregularities.

The matter has been posted for further consideration on June 20, 2026.

Case No: SSCR No. 14 of 2026

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Counsel for Respondents: S. Rajmohan (Sr. GP), G. Biju