The Kerala High Court has expressed dissatisfaction at the Vigilance probe into the alleged irregularities in the sale of ‘Abhisheka Neyy Prasadam’ at Sabarimala. The court directed the appointment of a new officer to head the probe and re-evaluate the findings in the Vigilance report.This is a fit case where the entire matter requires reconsideration by a senior officer of impeccable integrity, proven competence, and adequate experience. The said officer shall independently examine the entire records, re-evaluate the report findings, and place a comprehensive report before the court within four weeks, indicating whether offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are made out against any of the accused, the court said.When the matter was taken up on May 29, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta Unit, placed before the High Court a detailed investigation report. The TDB had suffered a loss of over ₹17 lakh due to misappropriation in ghee sale through four counters at the Sabarimala Sannidhanam from November 17 to December 27, 2025.The court said the Vigilance had taken the view that owing to the absence of proper maintenance of records, it was not possible to fix individual responsibility upon the board employees who functioned as temple special officers and counter staff during this period."It is stated that all 43 employees arraigned as accused are collectively responsible for the board’s loss. The report seeks permission to file a final report before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kollam, treating the case as ‘further action dropped’ against all 43 accused, except third accused Aneesh M.T. and 14th accused Sunil Kumar K.R.,” the court said.Significantly, the Vigilance had itself concluded that there was entrustment of ghee packets to the counter staff, that they were under a corresponding duty to account for the same, and that there was dereliction of such duty. The subsequent recommendation to close the matter on the ground that the exact quantity entrusted to each employee could not be determined appeared, prima facie, to be incongruous with the nature of the findings recorded, the court added.“We are unable, at this stage, to readily subscribe to such an approach. The probe was not intended merely to ascertain whether there were administrative lapses in the maintenance of records. It was to ascertain the manner in which the loss occurred, the systemic deficiencies that enabled it, and, most importantly, the persons responsible,” it said. Published - June 10, 2026 08:58 pm IST