Sabarimala Ashtabhishekam: Kerala HC Orders Submission of 10 Years of Records Within 10 Days, Directs Strict Action
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has directed stringent action based on a vigilance report that highlighted serious irregularities and a lack of transparency in the administration of the Sabarimala temple, including the conduct of special rituals such as Ashtabhishekam and the management of financial affairs.
A Division Bench comprising Justices V. Raja Vijayaraghavan and K.V. Jayakumar ordered the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to produce, within ten days, all records related to Ashtabhishekam, Mahanivedyam, Ganapathi Homam, and other offerings conducted over the past ten years. The court also directed the Board to submit complete details of materials supplied by Sunil Kumar, popularly known as Sunil Swami, or any other sponsors, along with corresponding registers, receipts, and stock records.
The Bench further sought information regarding independent auditors or external agencies that had previously audited the Board's accounts, along with soft copies of audit reports. The State Audit Department has been instructed to independently examine these records and submit a report assessing whether the current financial management practices are transparent and accurate. The report must specifically address whether adequate safeguards exist to prevent financial irregularities and embezzlement. The case is scheduled for further consideration on the 19th of this month.
In an earlier order issued on May 18 this year, the High Court had already pointed to serious concerns regarding the conduct of Ashtabhishekam rituals and the method adopted for collecting money for the purchase of ritual materials. One of the main allegations was that the Administrative Officer had been collecting ₹300 per Ashtabhishekam from devotees as supplier expenses without maintaining proper bills, vouchers, or purchase records.
The vigilance report also raised concerns over the supply of pooja materials by Sunil Kumar, alias Sunil Swami. According to the report, he supplied materials worth approximately ₹3 lakh for monthly poojas and around ₹18 lakh during the Mandala-Makaravilakku pilgrimage season. The court observed that accepting supplies from the same individual for years without transparency, accountability, or proper authorization could encourage corruption and administrative abuse.
The report further stated that Sunil Kumar supplied 20 sacks of jaggery for monthly poojas and 210 sacks during the pilgrimage season. These materials were reportedly stored in an area adjacent to the Administrative Officer's room. Although Devaswom Board regulations mandate the issuance of receipts through Form No. 3 and the maintenance of a separate register for special offerings, these procedures had allegedly not been followed.
The vigilance officer found that the purchase documents examined did not include genuine invoices from shops and contained only details of quantities supplied. The court reiterated that proper bills and vouchers are indispensable when funds are drawn from the temple treasury.
The High Court had previously directed the Director of the State Audit Department to examine accounts relating to Ashtabhishekam over the past decade to determine whether the Devaswom Board had suffered any financial loss and to identify officials responsible, if any. However, after the Government Pleader sought additional time to submit the audit report, the court granted a three-week extension.
At the same time, the court rejected the Board's contention that Kerala Financial Code provisions and the Purchase Manual were not applicable to Sub Group Officers or Administrative Officers purchasing offering materials, arguing instead that such transactions were governed solely by special Board orders. The court noted that the Travancore Devaswom Board, established under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, is a statutory autonomous body administering more than 1,250 temples. As an institution managing devotees' funds, it cannot claim complete exemption from financial regulations. Any such exemptions, the court said, must be properly documented and subjected to audit scrutiny.
The court also dismissed the Board's argument that obtaining bills was impractical because offering materials were perishable, and that the fixed amounts approved by the Board were lower than prevailing market rates. According to the court, the perishable nature of such items actually increases the risk of misuse, making meticulous record-keeping even more essential. The court observed that alternative mechanisms, such as daily procurement with timely submission of bills, could have been implemented.
Describing the Board's claim that adherence to financial regulations would increase costs as "shocking," the court said that bypassing bills altogether instead of revising outdated rates raises serious doubts regarding both the quality and quantity of materials procured.
In its affidavit, the Board stated that materials required for Ashtabhishekam, including rose water, milk, and tender coconuts, were purchased by Administrative Officers from local markets. While a committee comprising Devaswom, Finance, and District Deputy Devaswom Commissioners had recommended a rate of ₹500 for such purchases, the Board had approved only ₹300. The court, however, made it clear that such practices could not continue and that procurement processes must be made transparent.
The Bench observed that Administrative Officers were effectively being treated as contractors responsible for procurement. Concentrating purchasing, storage, verification, and accounting functions in a single individual creates opportunities for financial malpractice, it said.
The court also noted that despite a Board order issued on June 11 last year directing that all materials donated by devotees be recorded in registers, receipts had not been issued for materials supplied by Sunil Kumar. The Board's explanation that receipts were not issued because the donor was not personally present and because there was uncertainty regarding exact quantities was found to be unsatisfactory. The court held that such omissions amounted to a violation of the Board's own directives.
The Board informed the court that it has now issued instructions to ensure that receipts are provided in accordance with DFF Form No. 3, with accurate quantities duly recorded.