Introduction:

In a significant move underscoring judicial oversight over public religious institutions and financial accountability, the Kerala High Court has directed the production of all records relating to the Global Ayyappa Sangamam conducted on September 29, 2025. The matter arose in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., initiated on the basis of a report submitted by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner concerning the audited accounts of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) in relation to the event.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar expressed serious concern over the Board’s failure to furnish transparent and verifiable financial statements within the time stipulated by earlier court orders. The Court observed that if credible data regarding funds expended and the purposes of such expenditure could not be produced despite ample opportunity, it would lead to an unsettling conclusion regarding the Board’s financial discipline. Emphasizing that it could not “remain a silent spectator” in the face of potential irregularities, the Bench suo motu impleaded the independent auditor and called for all primary records connected with the event.

Background of the Dispute:

The Global Ayyappa Sangamam, a large-scale religious congregation, was conducted with the prior approval of the High Court. That approval, however, was conditional. The State of Kerala and the Travancore Devaswom Board had assured the Court that the event would be financed exclusively through sponsorships and not by diverting temple funds.

In interim orders passed in earlier challenges to the conduct of the event, the Court had explicitly directed that:

• Clear, detailed, and transparent accounts reflecting the total estimated cost of the event must be maintained.
• Accounts must include accommodation and travel expenses.
• Contributions received from sponsors must be specifically recorded.
• The accounts must be subjected to audit.

A copy of the audited accounts must be furnished to the Special Commissioner within 45 days of the event for placement before the Court.

However, these directions were not complied with within the stipulated period. Multiple extensions were granted, yet the required documentation was not furnished satisfactorily. The delay and subsequent audit findings triggered the present suo motu proceedings.

Arguments and Submissions by the State Audit Department:

The Kerala State Audit Department filed an affidavit clarifying its limited role. It stated that the audit of the event was conducted by a Chartered Accountant firm engaged by the Board itself and that the department had not carried out any statutory audit of the accounts.

Significantly, the department pointed out that the Board had failed to submit the relevant accounts despite reminders. Without access to original records, it stated that it could not independently verify the findings of the Chartered Accountants or express any authoritative opinion.

This position effectively distanced the statutory audit machinery from the financial scrutiny of the event and placed the burden squarely on the Board to justify its accounting practices.

Submissions by the Travancore Devaswom Board:

The Travancore Devaswom Board filed an interim application seeking an additional three weeks’ time to furnish explanations regarding the alleged irregularities flagged in the audit report.

The Board submitted that it had engaged an independent auditor, M/s. Vijayan and Associates, which had prepared a report based on receipts and payments accounts—both on cash basis and on cash and credit basis—for the period between August 8, 2025, and February 2, 2026.

The Board appeared to contend that since an independent audit had already been conducted, the Court ought to grant it further time to collate clarifications and respond to the queries raised.

Court’s Observations:

The Division Bench adopted a firm stance. It noted that even for a one-day event, the Court had granted more than three months’ time for placing financial statements on record. Despite this latitude, credible and verifiable data had not been produced.

The Court observed:

“If, despite such latitude, the Board is unable to furnish credible and verifiable data regarding the funds expended and the specific purposes for which such expenditure was incurred, it can only lead to the unsettling conclusion that the financial discipline of the Board and its officers is below par.”

The Bench further remarked that if incorrect or inflated payment particulars, or receipts lacking authenticity, were furnished for audit purposes, the matter would be of grave concern. Judicial oversight, it held, could not be reduced to a mere formality.

The Court emphasized that the purpose of audit is to obtain reasonable assurance that financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether arising from fraud or error. It was therefore essential to examine whether this objective had been meaningfully pursued.

Suo Motu Impleadment of Independent Auditor:

In a significant procedural step, the Court suo motu impleaded the independent auditor, M/s. Vijayan and Associates. It directed the firm to produce all records and documents related to the event that were made available by the Board during the audit process.

The Court made it clear that it would examine:

• Whether any queries, objections, or qualifications were raised during the audit;
• The nature of explanations offered by the Board in response;
• Whether the audit exercise met the standards expected of financial scrutiny.

This direction signals the Court’s determination to independently verify the authenticity and adequacy of the audit process rather than rely solely on secondary summaries.

Direction to Produce Bank Records:

The Bench also directed the Board to produce the full account statement of the bank account opened with Dhanlaxmi Bank in the name of the Devaswom Accounts Officer for conducting the event.

This step indicates the Court’s intent to trace the flow of funds directly from the source, ensuring that sponsorship contributions and expenditures are accurately reflected and reconciled.

Judicial Philosophy Underlying the Order:

The order reflects broader constitutional principles:

• Accountability of Public Religious Institutions: The Travancore Devaswom Board administers temples and manages public funds. Judicial scrutiny ensures that such bodies adhere to standards of transparency.
• Doctrine of Public Trust: Funds received for religious purposes must be used strictly in accordance with declared objectives.
• Financial Discipline and Governance: Courts can intervene where administrative laxity threatens public confidence.
• The Bench’s remark that it cannot remain a “silent spectator” encapsulates the judiciary’s role as guardian of accountability in matters involving public institutions.

Implications of the Order:

The decision may have far-reaching consequences:

• It reinforces that court-approved assurances must be strictly honored.
• It signals that failure to maintain financial transparency will invite deeper scrutiny.
• It sets a precedent for judicial intervention in auditing processes of statutory religious boards.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 6, where the Court is expected to examine the records produced and determine the next course of action.