The High Court in Kerala has asked the state government and the Travancore Devaswom Board to finish sanctioning prosecution in the Sabarimala gold theft case quickly, so that the Special Investigation Team can file its chargesheet and the trial can start.
A Division Bench of Justices V Raja Vijayaraghavan and KV Jayakumar, which has been overseeing the probe, said the sanction exercise must be speeded up so that the trial does not slip further. The case concerns gold allegedly removed from the panelling on the doorframe of the sanctum sanctorum.
Thirteen people are arraigned as accused, among them former members of the governing body of the Travancore Devaswom Board, Board officials and Unnikrishnan Potty, described as a key accused in the investigation. Sanction to prosecute is required in 10 of the 13 cases, a step that must be cleared before the final report can be submitted.
Sanction for four of the accused has to come from the Revenue and Devaswom Secretary, while the Board itself is the authority for the other six. The SIT told the court that the requests have already been filed — four with the Revenue (Devaswom) Department Secretary and six with the Board, since those six worked for the Board.
Investigating officer S. Sasidharan told the court that the SIT would file the final report before the jurisdictional court as soon as the sanctions are obtained. The Assistant Legal Adviser has already cleared the draft chargesheet and given a legal opinion, indicating that the probe is at an advanced stage.
The final report is understood to cite 350 witnesses and to list 285 documents and 12 material objects. The SIT, which is examining the roles of former office-bearers, officials and contractors linked to the gold-plating work at the temple, said its investigation into the alleged removal of gold from the Dwarapalaka idol plates and side plates is in its final stages.
The allegations, concerning one of Kerala's most revered temples, have triggered widespread controversy. They remain unproven: no chargesheet has been filed yet, no trial has begun, and none of the accused has been convicted.
Prosecution sanction is now the main procedural requirement standing between the investigation and the final report, and the court's direction is aimed at ensuring that clearance does not become a fresh source of delay. With the draft cleared, the focus now shifts to the state government and the Board to issue the sanctions. The matter will be heard again on December 2.
(With inputs from media reports)