Kerala High Court Directs Speedy Prosecution Sanction Steps in Sabarimala Gold Theft Investigation

Court presses for movement on sanction

The Kerala High Court has directed the authorities concerned to accelerate the process for obtaining legal advice and prosecution sanction in the investigation into alleged misappropriation of gold from coverings associated with the Sabarimala temple. The direction followed a status report from the Special Investigation Team indicating that its investigation into one part of the case had concluded but the next procedural steps were delayed.

A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar considered the matter during an in-camera hearing. The Court directed the authorities to ensure that the necessary legal advice is obtained without delay and that a request for prosecution sanction is placed before the competent authority. The Court did not grant sanction itself or pronounce on the guilt of any person.

How the investigation developed

The proceedings concern allegations relating to gold-plated copper coverings on temple doorframes and other structures associated with the sanctum sanctorum. The reported background refers to coverings installed after donations made in 1999 and to their removal for repairs in 2019. Records describing the removed material as copper sheets, rather than gold-plated copper, became part of the controversy.

Subsequent examination reportedly identified a discrepancy in the quantity of gold. These circumstances led to concerns about possible misappropriation and prompted judicial monitoring. The High Court had earlier initiated suo motu proceedings following information brought before it and constituted a Special Investigation Team to examine the allegations.

The present hearing dealt not with a final adjudication of those allegations, but with the progress of investigation and the steps needed before a final report could be filed before the court having criminal jurisdiction.

Why prosecution sanction became central

The head of the SIT informed the Bench that the investigation relating to the doorframes had been completed and that a factual report and draft chargesheet had been prepared. However, the request for sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had not yet been advanced because the investigating team was awaiting the opinion of an Assistant Legal Advisor.

The Court was informed that the advisor had not assumed charge despite appointment. Director General of Prosecution T. Asaf Ali assured the Bench that steps would be taken to facilitate the advisor's joining and the provision of the required legal opinion. The Bench directed the concerned authorities to expedite those steps rather than allow the investigation to remain stalled at the stage of legal scrutiny.

Sanction is a statutory safeguard in corruption prosecutions involving the categories of public servants covered by the Act. Its procedural role should not be confused with a finding that the alleged offence has been proved. The competent authority must deal with a properly presented request in accordance with law; the criminal court then considers the matter through the appropriate process.

Separate inquiry and next steps

The Bench also addressed a separate investigation concerning Dwarapalaka coverings and directed the SIT to complete that inquiry and pursue sanction within the timetable already fixed. The two strands of investigation should not be treated as one completed prosecution merely because progress was reported in the doorframe case.

The practical consequence is an instruction to remove administrative delay: obtain legal advice, present the sanction request, and submit the final report before the jurisdictional court once the required sanction is obtained. Judicial monitoring will continue according to the Court's directions. The allegations remain allegations until established in a competent criminal proceeding.

Case: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Others. Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar. Legal provision reported: Section 19(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.