In a significant development concerning the high-profile Sabarimala temple gold theft case, the Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to expunge critical remarks made by the Kerala High Court against K P Sankaradas, a former member of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB).
Supreme Court's Stern Observation
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma considered the petition filed by Sankaradas, who challenged the adverse observations made against him by the single bench of the High Court. The apex court, noting the gravity of the alleged theft of gold from the sacred Sabarimala temple, made a poignant oral remark directed at the petitioner: "You didn't even spare God."
Seeing that the bench was not inclined to entertain his plea, the counsel representing Sankaradas sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court allowed this request and subsequently dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Background: High Court's Scathing Order on Probe Lapses
This appeal stemmed from a previous order by a Kerala High Court bench, which had delivered sharp criticism of the ongoing investigation into the Sabarimala gold heist. The High Court had highlighted serious lapses in the probe, casting a significant shadow of doubt over the entire investigative process.
That order was issued while the High Court was dismissing the bail petitions of several key accused in the case, including former TDB president N Vasu, deputy devaswom commissioner Murari Babu, and former thiruvabharanam commissioner K S Baiju.
In its detailed order, the High Court bench had expressed serious concern over the failure of investigators to arrest other TDB members who were in office during the period of the alleged theft. This list explicitly included Vijaya Kumar and K P Sankaradas, both of whom were named as accused in the case but had not been taken into custody.
Sankaradas's Plea and the Apex Court's Clarification
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Sankaradas had contended that the adverse remarks by the High Court single bench were passed without granting him a hearing. He specifically sought the deletion of five paragraphs from the impugned High Court order which stated that he bore criminal liability for the misappropriation of gold from the temple.
The Supreme Court, however, observed that there was no reason to interfere with the High Court order at this stage. The top court provided crucial clarifications regarding Sankaradas's legal avenues. It stated that if the former TDB member were to file a petition for anticipatory bail, it would be considered by the courts on its own merits.
Furthermore, the bench noted that Sankaradas retains the option to approach the Kerala High Court itself with a separate plea, seeking the deletion of the adverse remarks from the order in question.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's serious view of the allegations in the Sabarimala gold theft case, which has shaken public trust, while also outlining the procedural paths available to the accused.
