THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A shortfall in the remittance of ghee sales at the Sabarimala temple detected over a matter of weeks has prompted the Kerala High Court to order a high-level vigilance investigation, citing signs of deliberate fraud, systemic supervisory failures, and possible complicity beyond frontline staff.
A Court Alarmed by a Brief but Telling Discrepancy
The Kerala High Court’s intervention was triggered not by the absolute scale of money involved, but by the speed and pattern with which it went missing. Examining records from the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), the court described the short remittance of sale proceeds from “Adiya Sishtam Ghee” as “alarming” and far beyond what could be dismissed as an accounting lapse.
Internal vigilance had first flagged the discrepancy, leading to the suspension of a counter employee, Sunil Kumar Potty. But the bench — Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K.V. Jayakumar made it clear that individual action was insufficient. Ordering a full-fledged inquiry by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, the court stressed that the nature of the lapse pointed to deliberate misappropriation and exposed deeper weaknesses in oversight at one of India’s most revered pilgrimage sites.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
The investigation team, the court directed, must report directly to it within a month and seek permission before any closure, underscoring judicial concern about the seriousness of the allegations.
How the Alleged Shortfall Took Shape
According to materials placed before the court, between November 17 and December 26, 2025, a contractor packed 3,52,050 packets of 100 ml ghee supplied to the Sabarimala temple. These were handed over to a special officer for sale at the Maramath building counter.
During this period, around 89,300 packets were sold. Of these, 143 were found defective, and only 28 remained unsold by December 27, leaving 89,129 packets that should have been fully accounted for. Yet, counter staff remitted funds corresponding to only 75,450 packets.
The difference — 13,679 packets — translated into a shortfall of ₹13,67,900. The court noted that the gap was not spread over a long period but compressed into days, strengthening the inference of intentional diversion rather than casual error.
Subsequent vigilance reports widened the picture. An additional shortage of 22,565 packets between December 27, 2025, and January 2, 2026, led to a further revenue loss of ₹22,65,500, pushing the total unremitted amount beyond ₹35 lakh in under two months.
Why Adiya Sishtam Ghee Matters Financially
For devotees visiting Sabarimala, coconuts and ghee are central offerings to Lord Ayyappa. The TDB repackages these offerings into sealed 100 ml packets of “Adiya Sishtam” prasadam, which are sold back to pilgrims. The process represents a significant revenue stream for the board.
The economics are stark. While the board pays contractors about 20 paise per packet for packing — providing all materials itself — each packet is sold for ₹100. Given the scale of pilgrim footfall during the season, even minor deviations in accounting can rapidly escalate into large sums.
It was this context that sharpened the court’s concern. The bench observed that casual handling of such high-volume, high-value transactions, particularly during peak pilgrimage periods, invited abuse and demanded far stricter controls than those apparently in place.
Lapses, Accountability, and the Question of Complicity
In its order, the court catalogued procedural failures that, it said, created fertile ground for misappropriation: the absence of stock-taking during counter handovers, irregular record-keeping, and unexplained delays in remitting cash collections.
Sunil Kumar Potty, the suspended employee, was singled out for failing to issue receipts and for remitting ₹68,200 only after a delay of 17 days. Records from November 17 to December 26 indicated prima facie responsibility on in-charge staff, with documentation so careless that the court suggested it may have been designed to conceal diversions.
More pointedly, the bench warned that such lapses could not occur without supervisory neglect. It spoke of “deep-rooted systemic failures” and raised the possibility of “knowledge, acquiescence, or wilful blindness” among higher officials. Past judicial warnings about lax revenue handling, it noted, appeared to have gone unheeded.
