High Court expresses dissatisfaction, orders re-investigation in Sabarimala ghee sales scam

KOCHI: The High Court remarked that the investigation by the Vigilance Special Team into the irregularities worth lakhs in the sale of Abhisheka Ghee Prasadam (Aadiya Sishtam Ghee) in Sabarimala was inadequate. The court expressed dissatisfaction over the permission sought to terminate further proceedings. The Devaswom Bench Comprising Justice V. Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, also directed the Vigilance Director to re-examine the case by appointing a competent senior officer. The possibility of applying the Prevention of Corruption Act and BNS sections should also be examined, and a comprehensive report should be submitted within four weeks. The case will be considered on July 15.

The Travancore Devaswom Board lost Rs 17.14 lakhs in the last Mandala-Makaravilakku season alone due to sales irregularities. The Vigilance investigation conducted as per the court's order confirmed this, and 43 temple employees were charged. However, the Pathanamthitta Vigilance DySP submitted a report to the High Court, assessing that it was the administrative lapses and errors in the record that led to the irregularities. He also explained that it is difficult to ascertain the irregularities as the registers are not accurate. The report only mentions the role of the third accused, A.T. Aneesh, and the 14th accused, K.R. Sunilkumar. Permission was sought to discontinue further departmental action and recovery of the amount against them.

The Special Commissioner had submitted a report alleging irregularities at the distribution counters. The court is considering a suo motu petition.

The Devaswom bench clarified that the aim of the vigilance investigation is not only to find administrative lapses. The method of embezzlement and the role of each person should be clarified. Temple officers, ex officers, counter employees and priests are responsible. Previous irregularities should also be found. No serious investigation was conducted. The court also pointed out that the SP supervising the matter had retired and so directed that a senior officer with investigative skills take up the matter.