A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, hearing suo motu proceedings initiated on the basis of a report submitted by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner, observed that the allegations disclosed in the preliminary enquiry were extremely grave and warranted an independent vigilance investigation.

According to the enquiry report, the Travancore Devaswom Board had initially invited e-tenders for the supply of ghee. The lowest bidder quoted ₹369 per litre, while Milma's price stood substantially higher at ₹510 per litre.

Despite the tender process, the Board approved the purchase of 1.65 lakh litres of ghee from Milma after the Executive Officer claimed that Milma ghee's superior quality would reduce the quantity required for preparing Aravana and improve its quality. The Court noted that these claims were unsupported by any scientific study or empirical evaluation.

The Bench further observed that the Devaswom Commissioner had opposed the proposal, questioning both the assumptions regarding quality and the significantly higher procurement cost. Nevertheless, the Board cancelled the tender process and proceeded with the purchase from Milma.

The Court noted that the preliminary enquiry raised serious doubts about whether the entire quantity of 1,61,535 litres claimed to have been supplied by Milma had actually reached Sabarimala.

The report also stated that, had the Board proceeded with the original L1 bidder, it could have saved approximately ₹2.27 crore.

The enquiry highlighted several alleged discrepancies, including irregularities in transportation, receipt and accounting of the ghee, absence of proper quality verification at the time of receipt, reliance on quality certificate issued by a third-party supplier rather than testing the ghee actually supplied by Milma.

The report further noted that Milma had procured nearly 24,970 kilograms of ghee from Sonai Co-operative Dairy, Pune, after receiving the supply order from the Devaswom Board. The Vigilance enquiry reportedly found Milma's explanation that the purchase was intended to meet Onam demand to be unconvincing.

The Court also referred to an earlier order regulating the collection of leftover ghee from devotees after Neyyabhishekam, observing that substantial quantities of ghee had already accumulated at Sabarimala. In those circumstances, the necessity of purchasing additional ghee at a much higher price required closer scrutiny.

Finding that the allegations disclosed possible financial loss to the Travancore Devaswom Board and potential misuse of public funds, the Bench directed the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to constitute a team of officers and register a crime based on the preliminary enquiry report.

The Court also clarified that, considering the nature of the allegations and existing judicial precedents, prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would not be required for the investigation.

The investigating team has been directed to submit a progress report before the High Court within one month and not disclose details of the investigation to the media.

Today, when the matter was taken up again, the State informed the Court that a VACB team had already been constituted pursuant to its earlier directions.

The Bench directed that the investigation be headed by M.J. Sojan, IPS, Superintendent of Police, VACB Special Cell, Ernakulam, who is already investigating alleged criminal misappropriation relating to "Adiya Sishtam Ghee" in separate proceedings concerning Sabarimala.

The Court directed the team to conduct the investigation with utmost diligence and vigour and to examine every aspect highlighted in the preliminary enquiry report as well as the issues identified in its earlier order.

The matter has been posted for further consideration on August 17.

Case No: SSCR 24/ 2026

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