Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Suggests State To Enact Law With Penal Provisions To Protect Temple Properties

The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 12) orally suggested the Additional Director General of Prosecution to make a recommendation to the State to make a law for protecting temple properties that would also contain penal provisions for violation of duties.

Justice A. Badharudeen was considering the bail pleas of former Travancore Devaswom Board President A. Padmakumar, TDB ex-official Murari Babu and jeweller Roddam Govardhanan. All of them are presently under custody and arrayed as the accused in the high profile case relating to the misappropriation of gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and doorframes of Sabarimala.

"Why can't you go for a Rules? Devaswom Management Rules? So that some penal provision also can be incorporated? Now various instances in temples coming with history of misappropriation. You may think of legislation. Manual by itself is not (sufficient). Disobedience may go for some disciplinary action. Binding on them and failure thereof is only disciplinary action. Not offence," the Court orally remarked.

While hearing the pleas, Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu appearing for Padmakumar submitted that the only allegation made out is regarding violation of the Devaswom Manual and this was not a penal offence.

The Court asks the ADGP why the State can't make a law called 'Kerala State Devaswom Properties Protection and Preservation Act'. If such a law was there, these dereliction of duties would come thereunder, it orally opined:

"You should have a specific statute because many temples, there are properties accumulated and somebody who are in and around the same, in one way or another way misappropriates the same. Many cases are coming. And he shall have the duty to protect the devaswom property to the interest of the believers. For that, there must be an enactment, in my view. What I am saying is, you are the ADGP, you can suggest to the government, that is why I am pointing out. Then these kind of arguments may not come."

The ADGP replied that the Devaswom Manual is binding on the officers of the Devaswom Board. According to him, A. Padmakumar was the official responsible as per the hierachy in the Devaswom Board. To this, the Court replied:

"That is not in dispute. He is right in arguing that mere violation of Manual is not an offence...That I already clarified. Here, violation, then go for criminal offence. Means criminal offence is also attracted where violation is also to be found. There lies the significance...You think of legislation as I suggested. Please discuss with Secretary and suggest for a legislation to protect the temple properties and making it as a very serious penal offence. As per provisions of the IPC."

The Court however said that violation of the Manual is only the first part of the offence.

"When what is the duty of the individual officer is being traced, Manual has some force. Mere violation of Manual doesn't by itself make any offence but when a duty is vested upon a party even by an office order, an office order is also not a statute. Office order violation is also not an offence. But, while getting such an assignment, doing a criminal act, in derogation of the order, is he is not doing the duty assigned, then that becomes an offence," Justice Badharudeen remarked.

However, the senior counsel vehemently argued that there is no criminal offence done as alleged by the prosecution. He is also pointed out that there was no evidence made out regarding misappropriation and only allegation is there.

He then argued that Padmakumar has been in custody for 52 days and he was arrested while cooperating with the investigation. It was also contended that a person cannot exercise any influence one he retires and submitted that he will not visit Sabarimala or Thiruvananthapuram if granted bail. He sought the indulgence of the Court in this matter.

Senior counsel Vijayabhanu advanced arguments on behalf of Jeweller Roddam Govardhanan as well. It was argued that Roddam was an ardent worshipper of Lord Ayyappa and has made various contributions and donations to the temple over the years.

Further, it was argued that the jeweller was made to forcibly part with 474.970 grams of 24k imported gold from his shop by the Special Investigation Team, who alleged that it was part of recovery. He submitted that including the afore gold taken by the SIT, his total contributions made to Sabarimala temple was well over ₹1.4 crores, including the 35 lakhs that he contributed for the Sreekovil doors.

The senior counsel then submitted that Roddam was arrested even though he should have been made a star witness by the prosecution. In his bail pleas, the flight tickets taken by him to travel to Kerala to cooperate with and contribute to the investigation were also produced. It was further submitted that the weight of the items actually increased after gold-plating instead of reducing, as claimed by the prosecution.

The Court also orally slammed the Travancore Devaswom Board during the course of the proceedings today for entrusting prime accused Unnikrishnan Potti with the temple properties in violation of the Devaswom Manual. It orally questioned:

"Why the devaswom board permitted Unnikrishnan Potti to do everything? Then what is the duty of the devaswom board? As good as no devaswom board. That's better."

Next, Advocate S. Rajeev argued on behalf of TDB's former Administrative Officer, Murari Babu. His earlier bail applications were dismissed by the Court and this was his second set of bail pleas. He pleaded that there was a change in circumstances.

It was argued that Babu already underwent 81 days in custody and the time for custodial interrogation has lapsed. Moreover, as earlier claimed by the prosecution that his face ID was required by the SIT to open a smartphone as part of the investigation was also done. It was contended that there was no point in continuing the custody.

After hearing the arguments in length, the Court reserved the matters for orders.

The bail applications of Padmakumar are moved by Senior Advocate Vijaya Bhanu and Advocates Sruthy N. Bhat, P.M. Rafiq, M. Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K. Sasi, Sruthy K.K., K. Aravind Menon, Aaron Zacharias Benny, Nanditha S. and Govind G. Nair.

The bail applications of Roddam Govardhanan are moved by Senior Advocate Vijaya Bhanu and Advocates Thomas Anakkallunkal, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Jayaraman S., Dhanya Sunny and Ann Milka George.

The bail application of Murari Babu are moved by Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, Maheswar P., T.P. Aravind, and Akshara S.

Case Nos: Bail Appl. 14662/2025 and Bail Appl. 172/ 2026, Bail Appl. 14761/2025 and Bail Appl. 14762/2025 & Bail Appl. 148/ 2026 and Bail Appl. 149/ 2026

Case Title: Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala, A. Padmakumar v. State of Kerala, B. Murari Babu v. State of Kerala