Kerala High Court Orders Vigilance Bureau Enquiry Into Alleged Gold And Cash Misappropriation In 2017 Temple Flag Mast Installation at Sabarimala
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, on Monday (February 9, 2026), directed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to constitute a team of officers to conduct an enquiry into the alleged misappropriation of gold and cash connected with the 2017 installation of a new temple flag mast at Sabarimala, and to submit a report before the court within 30 days. The court further ordered that all files, mahazars, accounts and connected documents relating to the flag mast work be forwarded to the vigilance director. The direction was issued in a suo motu proceeding concerning allegations of theft of gold from gold-cladded Dwarapalakas placed on either side of the Sreekovil at the shrine.
The proceedings arose from a suo motu petition concerning allegations of heist and plundering of gold from the gold-cladded Dwarapalakas placed on either side of the Sreekovil at Sabarimala. The respondents included the State, the Travancore Devaswom Board, senior police officials, and the State Audit Department. The Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted pursuant to earlier court directions, reported that 262 witnesses had been examined and statements recorded. Call data records of certain accused were being sought, and hard disks seized from a Chennai-based entity were under forensic analysis. Handwriting specimens had been forwarded for comparison.
The investigation was structured in four phases, including original gold cladding works, replacement of the Sreekovil door in 2019, and alleged removal and re-plating of gold components. The SIT proposed advanced metallurgical tests such as XRF, ICP-MS and OES at national laboratories. Separately, a complaint regarding alleged misappropriation of gold and cash in the 2017 Temple Flag Mast installation was placed before the Court, disclosing discrepancies in gold accounting and absence of mandatory donor receipts under Devaswom procedures.
The Bench observed, “Metallurgical composition analysis, impurity profiling, alloy ratio determination, plating thickness measurement, and trace element signature mapping constitute objective forensic indicators.” It recorded that, “These parameters are intrinsic to the material itself and cannot be fabricated, replicated, or altered without leaving measurable and scientifically detectable markers.” The Court further stated, “Modern analytical techniques are capable of identifying even microscopic variations in elemental composition, refining residues, bonding layers, and deposition patterns, thereby revealing whether the original cladding has been removed, tampered with, or replaced through secondary plating processes.”
On the evidentiary standard required, the Court observed, “Allegations of this nature, involving the removal and substitution of precious gold cladding from the Holy Shrine, strike at the very sanctity of the temple.” It stated, “Such allegations, by their very nature, cannot rest solely on testimonial assertions or documentary records, which may be susceptible to omission, manipulation, or interpretative dispute.” The Bench recorded that, “The proof must necessarily be anchored on demonstrable scientific parameters capable of independent verification and rigorous judicial scrutiny.”
The Court further observed, “Scientific evidence, being instrument-generated and data-driven, stands on a far higher evidentiary pedestal.” It stated, “It is free from human subjectivity, capable of reproducible validation, and can withstand expert cross-examination.” The Bench added, “We are therefore satisfied that such advanced forensic and metallurgical examination is absolutely essential, and the results thereof would constitute the bedrock upon which the prosecution case must rest so as to establish the allegations in a clear, cogent, and legally sustainable manner.” It also recorded, “Under no circumstance can the prosecution be permitted to proceed in the absence of an exact scientific foundation, thereby risking serious evidentiary lapses that may ultimately compromise the sustainability of the case.”
With respect to the Flag Mast issue, the Court recorded that discrepancies noticed were of a grave nature and that an independent vigilance enquiry was required to ascertain whether cognizable offences were disclosed.
The Court directed, “We grant permission to the SIT to collect samples. Post this matter on 19.02.2026 to report before this Court whether adequate samples have been taken and the details of the research institutes where the SIT proposes to carry out tests to conclusively establish essential aspects.”
“All files, records, mahazars, accounts, and connected documents relating to the construction and installation of the Temple Flag Mast, as referred to in the order dated 03.08.2016 in DBA No.13 of 2016, shall forthwith be forwarded to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Director shall constitute a team of competent and upright officers to conduct a preliminary enquiry, including recording statements of the donors and examining financial and material records, and shall file a report before this Court within a period of 30 days from today.”
The matter be listed on 19.02.2026 and recorded that, “On that day, Sri. S. Sasidharan, IPS, the Investigating Officer, and the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer (Superintendent of Police) shall appear in person before this Court.”
Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Regarding Alleged Heist And Plundering Of Gold From Sabarimala
Case Number: WP(C) No. 40608 of 2025
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice K. V. Jayakumar
