The Kerala High Court on Monday delivered a strong directive to the state government, urging it to consider enacting a stringent law with penal provisions to protect temple properties and valuables. This call comes in the wake of numerous reported instances of misappropriation within temple administrations across the state.
Court's Stern Directive for a Protective Law
A bench led by Justice A Badharudeen made this significant observation while hearing the bail petitions of key accused in the high-profile Sabarimala gold heist case. The court explicitly asked why the government could not frame specific rules for this purpose. It suggested the potential enactment of a "Kerala State Devaswom Properties Protection and Preservation Act", stating that the existing devaswom manual is insufficient.
The bench emphasized the state's duty, noting, "The state should have a specific statute in this matter because, in many temples, properties have been accumulated, and somebody in and around them, in one way or another, is indulging in misappropriation." The court reserved its orders on the bail pleas of former Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) president A Padmakumar, TDB deputy commissioner B Murari Babu, and Ballari-based jeweller Roddam Pandu Rangaiah Naga Govardhan.
Scrutiny of TDB's Actions and Accused's Conduct
The High Court did not mince words in questioning the Travancore Devaswom Board's conduct in the case. It specifically demanded to know why all related works were entrusted to Unnikrishnan Potti, the first accused. "Why was everything entrusted to Unnikrishnan Potti by the TDB? What role, if any, was the board itself performing?" the court asked.
Furthermore, the court expressed strong disapproval of the continued hospitalisation of another accused, former TDB member K P Sankaradas. Justice Badharudeen remarked orally, "He has been in hospital since the day he was arrayed as an accused. His son is an IPS officer. What nonsense is happening in this case?" This sharp comment highlighted the court's skepticism regarding the circumstances.
Arguments from the Defence
During the hearing, the senior counsel representing A Padmakumar, who has been in judicial custody for 52 days, argued that his client had fully cooperated with the investigation. The counsel assured the court of Padmakumar's willingness to abide by any bail conditions and continue cooperating with the probe.
Padmakumar's defence centered on two main allegations. First, he claimed he was accused merely for granting permission to remove the gold-clad copper coverings of the dwarapalaka idols and the sreekovil door frames for gold plating in Chennai, an act he argued violated the devaswom manual—which is not a statute. Second, regarding the allegation that he altered a TDB meeting note on March 19, 2019 by changing 'pithala' (brass) to 'chembu paalikal' (copper plates) instead of 'gold-clad copper plates', he contended it was not a deliberate act.
He also challenged the credibility of a note from the manager of the UB Group about gold cladding work done in 1998, stating no other documents substantiate their claim of sponsoring the cladding of the Sabarimala temple's sreekovil.
The court's forceful intervention underscores the growing judicial concern over the security and management of valuable assets belonging to temples in Kerala, pushing for legislative action to prevent future misappropriation.
