Kerala High Court Seeks Faster Prosecution Sanctions in Sabarimala Gold Theft Investigation

Quick Facts

• Court: High Courts
• Proceeding: W.P.(C) No. 40608 of 2025; order dated 10 November 2026
• Bench: Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K. V. Jayakumar
• Coverage window: Catch-up: newly reported development, with the underlying order date separately identified

Progress report placed before the Court

A Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K. V. Jayakumar considered an investigation progress report in the ongoing suo motu proceedings. The order dated 10 November 2026 records that Sasidharan, IPS, who heads the Special Investigation Team, placed the report before the Court. It sets out the investigation’s progress towards submission of a final report before the jurisdictional court. The update concerns procedural steps in a criminal investigation. It does not constitute a judicial determination that any accused person has committed the alleged offences.

Why prosecution sanctions are being sought

The report stated that the Assistant Legal Advisor had approved the draft charge and furnished legal advice on 9 November. It identified accused numbers 3, 8, 11 and 12 as public servants and referred to the requirement of sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act before cognizance of the alleged offences. The prescribed request had been sent to the Secretary of the Revenue (Devaswom) Department through the Additional Director General of Police, Crimes. The Court recorded that process rather than treating the requests as sanctions already granted.

Separate requests to the Devaswom Board

For accused numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13, the report identified the Devaswom Board as the appointing authority. Requests in the prescribed form seeking sanction under the same provision, as amended by the 2018 legislation, had accordingly been submitted to the Board through the Additional Director General of Police, Crimes. These two sets of requests together concern ten accused. The distinction between the two authorities is significant because the report describes separate routes through which the necessary prosecution permissions were being pursued.

The material proposed for the prosecution

According to the progress report, thirteen people had been arrayed as accused in the proposed final report. The prosecution material includes 350 cited witnesses, a list of 285 documents and twelve material objects. Those figures describe the investigation material reported to the Court; they are not findings that every allegation has been proved or that every item has already been admitted in evidence. The SIT head stated that the final report would be filed before the jurisdictional court once the required prosecution sanctions were received.

The direction and another investigation

After recording the sanction requests, the Bench asked that the matter be expedited so that trial proceedings could commence without further delay. The order therefore places emphasis on removing the procedural delay identified in the progress report. It also separately records the investigating officer’s statement concerning Crime No. 3700 of 2025. In that matter, the officer said the investigation was nearing completion and assured the Court that it would be finalised and requests submitted for prosecution sanction. That assurance must not be confused with a finding that all investigative steps had already been completed.

What happens next

The case was posted for further consideration on 2 December 2026. The next practical steps described in the order involve obtaining the requisite sanctions and placing the final report before the appropriate court. The order does not itself grant those sanctions, record that the final report has been filed, frame charges or decide the guilt of the people named by investigators. Those distinctions are important when reporting a court-supervised investigation. The immediate development is the High Court’s call to expedite the outstanding process, together with its recording of the investigation’s stated progress and the date for the next consideration.