The Sabarimala gold theft case- An evaluation

 

The Sabarimala gold theft case- An  evaluation 

=================================================================

The Sabarimala gold theft case, in which former Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) president N. Vasu, Deputy Devaswom Commissioner R. Murari Babu, and sponsor–priest Unnikrishnan Potti are among the accused, has evolved into one of the most closely monitored corruption investigations in Kerala, with the High Court itself supervising the probe and repeatedly recording its concern about large-scale misappropriation of temple gold. 

I. Background: How the “missing gold” issue arose

The controversy centres around gold-cladded panels and fittings in the Sabarimala Sreekovil:

the dwarapalaka idols (door guardians),

the side frames and lintel (kattilappadi) of the sanctum door, and

other gold-plated sheets and ornaments.

During renovation and gold-plating works carried out over the years (notably around 2018–2019), temple items were sent out for electroplating and repair. Subsequently, discrepancies were noticed between:

the weight and purity of gold originally handed over, and

the gold content of items returned after plating.

An internal assessment by the Travancore Devaswom Board, followed by judicial scrutiny, suggested that substantial quantities of gold had been siphoned off during these processes. In one strand of the case, the alleged loss is around 475 grams of gold (about 56 sovereigns) from dwarapalaka sculptures and the kattilappadi. 

The Kerala High Court, while monitoring the administration of Sabarimala, took note of inconsistencies in records and weights. A suo motu proceeding was initiated, and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Crime Branch was constituted to probe the suspected misappropriation of temple gold, with periodic progress reports being filed before the Court. 

II. FIRs and nature of the offences

The SIT has registered two FIRs:

One relating to irregularities in the gold-cladded panels of the dwarapalaka idols.

The other concerning alleged misappropriation of gold from the side frames and lintel of the Sreekovil door. 

Between the two FIRs, around 18 accused are named, including temple officials, board functionaries, and private individuals. The charges broadly include theft, dishonest misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. 

In particular, for the strand of the case relevant to N. Vasu, Murari Babu and Unnikrishnan Potti, the prosecution has invoked the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention): 

Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy

Section 403 – Dishonest misappropriation of property

Section 406 – Criminal breach of trust

Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant / banker / agent

Section 466 – Forgery of a record of court or public register, etc.

Section 467 – Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.

These charges reflect the prosecution theory that valuable temple property and official records were deliberately manipulated, not merely through physical removal of gold but also by falsifying documentation to conceal the theft and give it a veneer of regularity.

III. The principal accused and the allegations

1. Unnikrishnan Potti – A1: sponsor–priest and alleged key manipulator

Unnikrishnan Potti, described in multiple reports as a Bengaluru-based priest-turned businessman and “sponsor” of temple works, is the first accused (A1) and is treated by the SIT as the prime mover in the alleged scam. 

Key allegations against him include:

Under the guise of undertaking or sponsoring “repair” and gold-plating works for Sabarimala, he took custody of gold-cladded sheets and artefacts.

A remand report alleges that he misappropriated about 2 kg of gold by removing gold sheets from artefacts which were taken to various places, including Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, for processing. 

To cover up the removal of the original gold, a smaller quantity (around 394 g in one instance) was allegedly used for re-plating, while records were maintained in such a way as to suggest that standard work had been done.

During interrogation, he is said to have attempted to shift blame to Devaswom officials and board members, claiming that decisions were taken with their knowledge and approval. 

He was arrested in October 2025 by the SIT and, after police custody, remanded to judicial custody by the Ranni First Class Magistrate, with the court directing that his medical needs be addressed in jail. 

2. R. Murari Babu – A2: Deputy Devaswom Commissioner

R. Murari Babu is the second accused (A2). He was formerly an Administrative Officer of the TDB and later served as a Deputy Devaswom Commissioner before his suspension. 

The main allegations are that:

He misrepresented gold-cladded idols and door frames as ordinary copper, thereby enabling them to be sent out for “repairs” without the safeguards appropriate to high-value gold artefacts. 

He allegedly processed or forwarded files and recommendations in a manner that facilitated the removal and replacement of original gold, while official records portrayed the items as copper sheets.

As a responsible officer of the TDB, he is alleged to have acted in concert with Potti and others to enable misappropriation and to suppress the true nature of the temple property.

He was arrested on 23 October 2025, and his suspension had already been ordered on 7 October 2025 when the crimes were registered. 

The Times of India

The SIT and prosecution contend that, given his position, he was under a fiduciary duty to protect temple property; instead, he allegedly joined the conspiracy to treat gold-plated articles as copper for the purpose of facilitating theft. He now faces the full cluster of sections 120B, 403, 406, 409, 466 and 467 IPC read with Section 34. 

Murari Babu has argued in court that his role was purely ceremonial, that he was not in physical custody of valuables, and that he merely forwarded repair requests without any intent to misappropriate. His regular bail petitions are currently pending before the High Court. 

3. N. Vasu – A3: former TDB president and ex-Commissioner

N. Vasu, a former Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board who later became its president, has been arraigned as the third accused (A3) in the principal case on siphoning of gold from the Sreekovil door frames. 

The prosecution case against him, as reflected in remand and bail proceedings, is broadly that:

During his tenure as Devaswom Commissioner, an order was issued permitting Potti to take gold-plated sheets for electroplating in Chennai, and this permission was a key step that enabled the misappropriation. 

The SIT alleges that, in 2019, under his watch, gold-plated copper sheets were falsely recorded in documents as if they were plain copper sheets, thus concealing the quantity and value of gold involved when items were entrusted to the sponsor/contractor. 

He is accused of withholding crucial facts from the TDB in an internal report on missing gold and thereby misleading the Board regarding the true nature and extent of the loss. 

Vasu was arrested on 11 November 2025 after hours of interrogation. Reports describe his arrest as the first major “high-profile” arrest in the case. 

A vigilance court in Kollam recently rejected his bail plea, accepting the SIT’s contention that he was aware of and complicit in the conspiracy, and noting that he held a position of trust when the decisions surrounding the gold-plated sheets were taken. 

Vasu has consistently pleaded innocence, asserting that:

he merely forwarded communications as part of his official duties,

by the time of certain incidents he had retired, and

his age and health warrant leniency in bail. 

Nonetheless, he remains in custody as his regular bail petition before the Kerala High Court is being considered, with the Court having called for the prosecution’s detailed response. 

IV. Kerala High Court’s supervisory role and key interim orders

The Kerala High Court has been central to the trajectory of this case:

Suo motu proceedings and SIT supervision

The Court initiated proceedings after noticing discrepancies in records concerning the gold-plated artefacts.

A Crime Branch SIT was constituted and directed to submit periodic status reports. 

On 4 December 2025, the Court granted the SIT a further six weeks to complete the investigation, recording that while substantial progress had been made, scientific analysis of samples from dwarapalaka idols and scrutiny of past transactions (2014–2025) were still in progress. The matter has been adjourned to 5 January 2026 for the next review. 

Direction to probe “big guns”

In a recent order, while rejecting pre-arrest bail pleas of certain accused, the Court observed that the alleged theft could not have occurred without the involvement of higher-level officials and “big guns”. 

Justice A. Badharudeen pointed to a deliberate pattern of mis-labelling gold-cladded plates as copper and recommending unnecessary gold-plating, thereby opening the door to embezzlement. 

The SIT has been specifically directed to expand the probe to trace the role of more senior figures in the TDB and allied spheres, beyond those already arrayed as accused.

Bail jurisprudence in this case

The High Court has refused anticipatory bail to some former TDB officers and staff in connected FIRs, citing the seriousness of offences such as criminal breach of trust by public servants and forgery of public records. 

In respect of Murari Babu and N. Vasu, the Court has not yet finally decided their regular bail applications; it has sought instructions and detailed stands from the prosecution and posted the matters for further hearing (currently stated as 11 December 2025). 

V. Present procedural status (as on 6 December 2025)

Based on the latest publicly available reports, the case presently stands as follows:

Investigation stage, not trial stage

The case is still at the investigation stage. The SIT is continuing forensic and documentary analysis, including scientific tests on samples from dwarapalaka idols and scrutiny of documentation of earlier renovation and plating contracts. 

The High Court has given the SIT an additional six weeks for completion, with the next review listed for 5 January 2026. No final charge sheet has yet been reported in the public domain. 

Custody/bail position of the three principal accused

Unnikrishnan Potti (A1)

Arrested in October 2025, initially remanded to police custody and then to judicial custody by the Ranni Magistrate. 

As of late October and subsequent updates, he remains in judicial custody; there is no widely reported order granting him bail yet.

R. Murari Babu (A2)

Arrested on 23 October 2025, after being suspended from service. 

His regular bail petitions in the two Crime Branch cases (dwarapalaka panels and Sreekovil door frames) are pending before the Kerala High Court, which has directed the prosecution to state its stand and posted the matter for hearing on 11 December 2025. 

N. Vasu (A3)

Arrested on 11 November 2025 and later placed in SIT custody for further interrogation. 

A vigilance court in Kollam has rejected his bail plea, aligning with the SIT’s view that he was aware of and part of the conspiracy, especially with respect to mis-labelling gold-plated copper sheets as copper in 2019. 

He has moved the Kerala High Court for regular bail; the Court has sought the prosecution’s response, and the petition is pending alongside that of Murari Babu. 

Further arrests and widening of the net

The SIT has not confined itself to these three accused. Former TDB president A. Padmakumar has also been arrested, with allegations that he played a central role in issuing instructions and altering board minutes in ways that facilitated the theft, while directing that stolen gold be handed over to Potti. 

The High Court has explicitly asked the SIT to look beyond mid-level functionaries and to examine the possible involvement of political and administrative “big guns”. 

VI. Legal issues and implications

Even at the investigation stage, the Sabarimala gold theft case raises significant legal and institutional questions:

Scope of Section 409 IPC and fiduciary responsibility

Sections 406 and 409 IPC hinge on entrustment and breach of trust. In temple contexts, courts have repeatedly held that trustees and those in management of religious institutions hold property in a fiduciary capacity.

If the prosecution proves that board officials knowingly mis-described gold-cladded items as copper and facilitated sending high-value material out without adequate safeguards, Section 409 IPC (breach of trust by public servant) could be attracted with full force.

Forgery of public records – Sections 466 and 467 IPC

The allegations involve tampering with Devaswom Board minutes, mis-stating material facts in reports, and manipulating records regarding the nature and weight of temple assets. 

Such acts squarely raise issues under Sections 466 and 467 IPC, which deal with forgery of public registers and valuable securities/documents, and attract heavier punishment than ordinary forgery.

Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC

The prosecution theory is that Potti, board functionaries, and other staff acted pursuant to a common scheme: mis-label gold as copper, recommend or approve unnecessary plating/re-plating, siphon off gold during the process, and then regularise the exercise through forged or misleading records. 

The challenge at trial will be to link each accused to this overarching conspiracy through documents, file-movements, witness statements, and scientific evidence.

Judicial oversight in religious endowment cases

The Kerala High Court’s suo motu role underscores increasing judicial readiness to scrutinise temple administration—especially where allegations involve loss of public/ devotee property and misuse of statutory boards.

The Court’s directions to probe “big guns” is a reminder that liability for criminal breach of trust in such institutions cannot be confined to clerks and mid-level officers when decision-making is evidently more diffuse.

Impact on public trust in temple governance

Sabarimala is not an ordinary temple; it is a pan-Indian pilgrimage centre with enormous sentimental and financial contributions from devotees. Allegations that gold dedicated at the Sreekovil could be siphoned off transform the case from a mere property offence into a crisis of trust in institutional governance.

Depending on how the investigation and eventual trial proceed, the case may catalyse reforms in inventory management, independent audits, and statutory oversight of Devaswom Boards.

VII. Conclusion

To summarise the present stage:

The case is still under investigation by a High Court-monitored SIT, with two FIRs covering different sets of artefacts and accused.

Unnikrishnan Potti (A1) is in judicial custody;

R. Murari Babu (A2) and N. Vasu (A3) are also in custody, with their regular bail pleas pending before the Kerala High Court, which has sought the prosecution’s detailed response.

The High Court has extended time for the SIT, issued sharp observations on the likelihood of involvement of higher-ups, and has signalled that the probe cannot stop with a few arrests.

Given the dynamic nature of both the investigation and the parallel political controversy, the Sabarimala gold theft case is likely to remain a bellwether proceeding on accountability in temple administration, and its eventual outcome—at the charge-framing and trial stages—will be watched closely by lawyers, devotees and policy-makers alike.