Sabarimala ghee sale: Kerala HC directs vigilance to assign senior officer to review inquiry findings

Kochi: High court has directed the vigilance director to assign a senior officer to review the findings of the vigilance inquiry into the alleged misappropriation of money from the sale of ‘Aadiya Sishtam Ghee’ at the Sabarimala temple and determine whether any offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are made out against the accused persons.

HC granted the officer four weeks to examine the entire records, re-evaluate the findings contained in the report, and submit a comprehensive report before it. The bench of Justices V Raja Vijayaraghavan and K V Jayakumar also expressed dissatisfaction with the vigilance team’s report, which recommended dropping further action against the accused on the ground that individual responsibility could not be fixed due to the absence of properly maintained records. The case has been posted to July 15 for further consideration.

Pursuant to an earlier HC order, a special vigilance team investigated the alleged misappropriation of money from the sale of ‘Aadiya Sishtam Ghee’ at the temple. The team reported that the Travancore Devaswom Board had suffered a loss of Rs 17.14 lakh from the sale of ghee packets between Nov 17, 2025, and Dec 27, 2025. Although 43 employees arraigned as accused were found to be collectively responsible for the loss caused to TDB, the vigilance team sought permission to file a final report before the special court in Kollam recommending closure of the case against all except two employees, Aneesh M T and Sunil Kumar K R. The report, however, recommended departmental disciplinary proceedings against the employees and recovery of the loss suffered by TDB.

Rejecting the recommendation, HC observed that it appeared, prima facie, to be incongruous with the nature of the findings recorded. It further noted that the report tended to minimise the significance of the findings relating to entrustment, accountability, and the resulting loss caused to TDB. The court emphasised that the purpose of the investigation was not merely to determine the quantum of loss suffered by the institution, but also to ascertain how the loss occurred, identify the systemic deficiencies that enabled it, and, most importantly, determine those responsible for it. Therefore, the matter could not be viewed solely through the lens of administrative negligence or poor record-keeping.