Introduction:

The Kerala High Court has accepted a fresh Vigilance investigation report which found that the alleged loss suffered by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) in the sale of Adiyashishtam Ghee at Sabarimala during the 2025-26 Mandala-Makaravilakku season could not, on the material presently available, be attributed to individual criminal liability. At the same time, the Court made it clear that the circumstances leading to the loss of public money could not be treated lightly and directed the Devaswom Board to strengthen its administrative, accounting and supervisory mechanisms.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering the suo motu proceedings initiated on the basis of a report submitted by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner alleging misappropriation of money at the ghee sales counter. The proceedings also took into account a separate audit report submitted by the Devaswom Board following verification of Adiyashishtam Neyy Prasadam during the 1201 M.E. Mandalam and Makaravilakku festivals.

The controversy arose from an alleged discrepancy in the sale proceeds of Adiyashishtam Ghee between November 16 and December 27, 2025. An earlier investigation had estimated that the Travancore Devaswom Board had suffered a loss of approximately ₹17.14 lakh. The investigating officer, however, had recommended that further proceedings against most of the accused be dropped. Vigilance authorities had subsequently recommended stringent disciplinary proceedings against the officials concerned under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960.

The High Court, finding the circumstances requiring closer examination, directed that the matter be reassessed by a senior officer possessing the requisite experience and an established reputation for integrity. The fresh investigation subsequently placed before the Court presented a more complex picture than a straightforward case of deliberate misappropriation by individual employees.

According to the fresh report, the financial loss could not be attributed solely to intentional diversion or misappropriation by the employees deployed at the sales counters. Instead, the investigation disclosed serious deficiencies at multiple stages of the process, including production, storage, transportation, distribution and sale of the Adiyashishtam Ghee packets.

The report further stated that there was no material presently available to establish individual criminal liability against the employees or counter sales staff. Nor was there sufficient material to establish a criminal conspiracy involving the packing contractor, counter staff, Temple Special Officers and the Executive Officer. However, the investigation did not suggest that nothing had gone wrong. On the contrary, it recorded that public money had been lost and that certain officials could potentially be responsible for administrative lapses, although their individual criminal responsibility could not be established from the material available.

The distinction between administrative negligence and criminal liability became central to the proceedings. The Court was therefore required to determine whether the material justified continuation of criminal proceedings against the persons arrayed as accused, while also addressing the institutional deficiencies that had contributed to the loss.

The case also brought into focus the unique administrative challenges associated with Sabarimala. During the pilgrimage season, Sannidhanam handles an enormous volume of devotees and offerings, requiring coordinated management of procurement, production, storage, transportation, sales, accounts, sanitation, accommodation, crowd control, health and safety and infrastructure. The Court noted that more than one lakh devotees may congregate at Sannidhanam on a single day during the pilgrimage season.

Against that background, the Bench observed that the administration of Sabarimala cannot be treated as an ordinary departmental establishment. The scale and complexity of operations require specialised managerial and technical expertise, clearly defined responsibilities and effective systems of supervision and accountability.

The Court’s order therefore dealt with two connected aspects. First, it examined whether the available evidence justified criminal prosecution of the officials in relation to the alleged loss. Secondly, and more significantly from an institutional perspective, it considered what measures should be adopted to prevent similar incidents in the future.

The proceedings also referred to the Court’s earlier order dated May 29, 2026, by which several measures had been directed concerning the handling and sale of Adiyashishtam Ghee. These included better definition of duties, documentation of duty periods and counter assignments, improved stock accounting, physical verification, proper recording of wastage and damage and greater use of computerised systems.

When the matter was taken up again, the Court was informed that the Executive Officer, Sabarimala, had submitted a report setting out a proposed procedure intended to streamline operations at Sannidhanam. The Division Bench took the report on record and directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to convert the proposed measures, together with the Court’s directions and suggestions, into a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure.

Thus, while the Court accepted the Vigilance conclusion that the material was insufficient to fix individual criminal responsibility, it simultaneously made clear that the administrative failures surrounding the loss demanded corrective action. The decision consequently goes beyond the question of criminal prosecution and addresses the larger issue of institutional accountability in the administration of one of Kerala’s busiest pilgrimage centres.

Arguments of the Parties:

The proceedings before the High Court were initiated suo motu on the basis of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner’s report concerning the alleged misappropriation of money in connection with the sale of Adiyashishtam Ghee. The Court was also placed in possession of the Devaswom Board Audit Report and the subsequent Vigilance investigation.

The material before the Court initially indicated a substantial financial discrepancy. The earlier investigation had quantified the alleged loss at ₹17.14 lakh. This naturally raised the question whether the discrepancy was the consequence of deliberate acts by employees entrusted with the handling and sale of the ghee packets.

The initial investigation, however, had not resulted in a recommendation to prosecute all those who had been arrayed as accused. The investigating officer had recommended dropping further proceedings against most of them. Vigilance authorities, while recognising the seriousness of the administrative conduct, had recommended stringent disciplinary proceedings under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960.

The High Court was not satisfied with merely proceeding on the basis of the initial material and therefore directed a fresh assessment by a senior and experienced officer. The subsequent investigation was consequently required to examine not only the conduct of individual employees but the entire chain through which the ghee was produced, stored, transported, distributed and sold.

The fresh report took the position that the loss could not be attributed exclusively to intentional misappropriation by employees working at the counters. According to the findings placed before the Court, there were serious deficiencies in the system itself. The investigation did not find sufficient material to establish that the counter staff had deliberately appropriated the missing amount or that the various persons involved in the process had entered into a criminal conspiracy.

The report also examined the role of the packing contractor, counter sales personnel, Temple Special Officers and the Executive Officer. While the investigation found circumstances indicating administrative failures, it did not find material sufficient to establish a criminal conspiracy among these persons.

This distinction was important because the existence of a financial loss by itself does not automatically establish the commission of a criminal offence by every person connected with the process. Criminal liability requires legally sufficient material linking the individual accused to the alleged offence. The Vigilance report therefore differentiated between the fact of loss, administrative negligence and individual criminal responsibility.

The Devaswom authorities also placed before the Court the proposed measures for improving the system. The Executive Officer, Sabarimala, submitted a report explaining the procedure proposed to streamline the operations at Sannidhanam. The measures contemplated greater documentation, supervision, stock verification and accounting.

The Court’s proceedings consequently moved beyond the question of whether a particular employee should face criminal prosecution. The Bench examined whether the existing administrative framework was sufficiently robust to protect public money and offerings handled at Sabarimala.

The investigation revealed that of the 39 counter sales staff deployed during the relevant period, ten had entered service only in November 2025 and were assigned counter duties in the same month. The Court took note of the fact that these employees had little experience. The investigation also revealed that one of the three Temple Special Officers had only five months of service.

These facts were relevant to the Court’s consideration of supervisory responsibility. The issue was not simply whether newly recruited employees could be blamed for the loss, but whether personnel with appropriate experience and managerial capability had been placed in positions where sensitive financial and stock-related operations were being supervised.

The Court also examined the manner in which accounts, registers and other records were maintained at Sannidhanam. The deficiencies in documentation and verification made it difficult to determine with precision where the loss had occurred and who, if anyone, could be held individually responsible.

The parties were therefore faced with a situation in which the existence of a loss was not seriously capable of being ignored, but the available evidence did not provide the degree of individual attribution necessary for criminal prosecution. The Court had to balance the need to protect public funds with the equally important principle that criminal liability cannot be imposed merely because an individual occupied an official position connected with the relevant process.

The Vigilance report ultimately concluded that, on the material presently available, individual criminal responsibility could not be established against the accused employees and counter sales staff. It also found no sufficient material to establish the alleged conspiracy involving the different categories of persons associated with the handling and sale of the ghee.

At the same time, the report did not absolve the administrative system of responsibility. It found that public money had been lost and that certain officials could be responsible for lapses, even though their individual criminal liability could not be determined from the available evidence.

The Court therefore considered that the appropriate response could include departmental or disciplinary proceedings and recovery measures even in the absence of a sustainable criminal prosecution.

The Devaswom Board was also required to respond to the institutional deficiencies identified during the proceedings. The Court considered that merely closing or dropping criminal proceedings would not adequately address the circumstances that had led to the loss. A preventive mechanism was necessary so that similar discrepancies would not recur during future pilgrimage seasons.

The proposed Standard Operating Procedure was consequently treated as an important part of the remedial process. The Court required the Board to incorporate its directions and the suggestions contained in the Executive Officer’s report into a comprehensive SOP covering the entire chain of operations.

The approach adopted by the Court therefore separated two questions that could otherwise become conflated: whether a particular individual had committed a criminal offence and whether the Devaswom Board’s systems were sufficiently strong to prevent financial and administrative irregularities. The first question was answered on the basis of the Vigilance report; the second required continuing institutional intervention.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench accepted the Vigilance report dated September 22, 2026, and concluded that the material presently available was insufficient to warrant criminal prosecution by fixing individual criminal responsibility upon the persons arrayed as accused.

The Court took note of the fact that the investigation had initially identified a loss of approximately ₹17.14 lakh to the Travancore Devaswom Board. However, the subsequent and more detailed investigation demonstrated that the loss could not simply be treated as the result of intentional misappropriation by the employees working at the ghee sales counters.

The fresh investigation examined the entire operational chain and identified deficiencies in production, storage, transit, distribution and sale. The Court accepted the conclusion that the circumstances pointed towards serious failures in the system rather than providing sufficient proof of a deliberate criminal conspiracy among the persons concerned.

This finding is significant because the Court did not equate the existence of a financial discrepancy with proof of criminal misconduct. The fact that public money had been lost was treated as a serious matter, but criminal responsibility had to be established against particular individuals on the basis of legally sufficient material.

The Bench accordingly accepted the Vigilance conclusion that there was, at the present stage, no adequate material to establish individual criminal liability against the employees and counter sales staff. The report also did not establish a conspiracy involving the packing contractor, counter staff, Temple Special Officers and Executive Officer.

The Court nevertheless made it clear that the absence of criminal liability did not mean that the administrative conduct could simply be ignored. The investigation had revealed serious deficiencies in the functioning of the system, and the Court considered that disciplinary proceedings could still be examined against the employees who had been arrayed as accused.

The Bench further observed that the Travancore Devaswom Board could consider appropriate measures for recovering the loss suffered by it. Thus, the criminal case and the administrative consequences were treated as distinct issues.

One of the most significant concerns identified by the Court related to the deployment of inexperienced personnel in sensitive positions. The Court noted that out of 39 counter sales staff, ten had entered service only in November 2025 and had been assigned counter duties during the same month.

The Bench also took note of the fact that one of the three Temple Special Officers had only five months of service. These circumstances led the Court to examine whether the supervisory structure was adequately equipped to handle the scale and sensitivity of the operations at Sannidhanam.

The Court observed that unless supervisory positions were occupied by officers possessing the necessary managerial capacity, experience and vision, incidents of this nature could recur. The observation reflected the Bench’s concern that effective supervision cannot depend solely upon formal designation or length of service.

The Court accordingly called for a broader review of the administrative structure of the Travancore Devaswom Board. It observed that several persons occupying managerial and supervisory positions appeared to have reached those positions primarily through long years of service and progression through the hierarchy, rather than on the basis of demonstrable managerial or supervisory expertise.

The Bench was careful to recognise that experience in government service has value. However, it held that the enormous scale and complexity of Sabarimala administration requires specialised skills and proven managerial capability in addition to conventional service experience.

Sabarimala’s operational requirements, as noted by the Court, extend far beyond the administration of a conventional temple. During the pilgrimage season, the Devaswom Board is required to deal with crowd management, accommodation, food distribution, offerings, procurement, storage, transportation, sanitation, health and safety, financial administration and infrastructure.

With more than one lakh devotees congregating at Sannidhanam on certain pilgrimage days, even a relatively small weakness in accounting or supervisory systems can have significant consequences. The Court therefore considered that the Board should explore ways of introducing specialised managerial and technical expertise into its administration.

The Bench suggested that the Devaswom Board seriously consider engaging competent professionals, at least on a contractual basis, for areas requiring specialised managerial or technical expertise. The Court also suggested that the Board could consider obtaining assistance from institutions such as the Centre for Management Studies or the Indian Institute of Management for training senior officers in managerial supervision, financial accountability, process management and institutional administration.

The Court’s intervention was not confined to general observations. It also directed concrete measures concerning the handling and sale of Adiyashishtam Ghee.

The Board was directed to clearly define the duties and accountability of personnel involved in the process. Individual duty periods and counter assignments were required to be documented. The Court further directed that the routine deployment of newly recruited and inexperienced employees for sensitive duties should be discontinued.

The accounting system was another major area of concern. The Court directed the creation of a robust mechanism under which separate registers would be maintained for the receipt and supply of ghee packets. Regular physical stock verification was required, together with proper accounting of losses, wastage and damage.

The Court also prescribed greater accountability during shift changes at the sales counters. Counter-wise registers were to be maintained, with outgoing and incoming employees certifying the stock handed over and received. Such a system would create a documented chain of custody and make it easier to identify discrepancies when they arise.

The Bench further directed the Board to prioritise computerisation of activities connected with the preparation, storage, accounting and sale of offerings, including Adiyashishtam Ghee.

The move towards computerisation was intended to reduce reliance upon informal or fragmented record-keeping and create a more traceable system. Digital tracking can also facilitate verification at different stages and help supervisors identify discrepancies before they become substantial.

The Court also considered the report submitted by the Executive Officer, Sabarimala. The report detailed the procedure proposed for streamlining operations at Sannidhanam. The Bench took the report on record and directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to prepare a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure incorporating both the Executive Officer’s suggesions and the directions issued by the Court.

The SOP is r