India's Special Investigation Team investigating the Sabarimala temple gold theft has filed a comprehensive report with the Kerala High Court formally naming former Travancore Devaswom Board president PS Prashanth, Sabarimala Thantri Kandaru Rajeevaru, sponsor Unnikrishnan Potty, and five others as accused in the case. The investigation team presented its findings on June 29, detailing what authorities describe as an elaborate scheme involving multiple conspirators, deliberate misrepresentation of temple assets, and attempts to conceal evidence of large-scale financial impropriety at one of South India's most prominent Hindu pilgrimage sites.
The accused roster includes deceased former Executive Officer Murari Babu as the primary accused, alongside current and former TDB officials. Chennai-based Smart Creations proprietor Pankaj Bhandari, TDB member A Ajikumar, Thiruvabharanam Commissioner Rajilal, and the late Murari Babu complete the list of individuals against whom charges have been filed. The breadth of accusations suggests investigators believe the conspiracy operated across multiple institutional levels and extended well beyond isolated misconduct by junior staff members.
Central to the investigation's findings is the narrative of gold replating work conducted on the Dwarapalaka guardian deity idols. According to the SIT report, these sacred objects, originally encased in substantial gold plating applied in 1998, were transported to Chennai in 2019 under arrangements made by Unnikrishnan Potty. During this first transfer, investigators allege that the thick original gold coating was systematically removed and substituted with thin gold plating, with the substantial quantity of removed gold being misappropriated and diverted outside official temple channels.
To prevent immediate discovery of the alleged theft, the conspirators reportedly issued a falsified forty-year quality assurance certificate. This measure temporarily obscured the inferior nature of the replacement work. However, the degraded plating quality manifested rapidly, with the copper substrate becoming visible within months of the idols' return to the temple. This visible deterioration created circumstances that forced the accused to devise an additional strategy to mask the original fraud.
The investigation reveals that rather than acknowledge the 2019 theft, the accused allegedly orchestrated a second transfer of the idols to Chennai in 2025, purportedly for fresh gold replating work. The SIT characterizes this 2025 action as a deliberate cover-up operation designed to obscure evidence of the earlier massive gold theft by creating the appearance of routine maintenance work. This second transfer allegedly occurred following PS Prashanth's appointment as TDB president, during which period Unnikrishnan Potty reportedly cultivated influence over the board's decision-making processes.
Investigators documented a pattern of deliberate mischaracterization of the Dwarapalaka idols in official documentation. The report states that TDB members and officials intentionally classified these precious temple artifacts as simple copper plates in transit permits and administrative records, thereby concealing their actual value and avoiding the stringent judicial oversight and legal procedures that would ordinarily apply to the movement of objects of significant religious and monetary worth. This misrepresentation appears designed to facilitate unimpeded transfer of the idols outside the temple's normal administrative and security protocols.
The Kerala High Court granted the SIT authority to register a fresh criminal case specifically concerning the alleged 2025 replating fraud. The court's decision to permit this additional case registration indicates that judicial authorities found the team's evidence and investigative conclusions sufficiently substantial to proceed against the named accused members. The court also directed that should additional credible evidence emerge against any of the accused during ongoing investigation, the SIT should file supplementary charge sheets in accordance with legal procedures.
The investigation into related components of the alleged temple theft has progressed unevenly. The SIT has completed its examination of allegations concerning the Sreekovil sanctum sanctorum doorframes and filed its final charge sheet in that portion of the case. However, investigators have sought additional time from the court to finalize their examination of matters relating to the Dwarapalaka idols, suggesting that the scope and complexity of the fraud involving the guardian deity statues exceeds that of the doorframe investigation.
This case carries implications extending well beyond the immediate criminal investigation. The alleged fraud involves respected institutional figures, complex coordination across temple administration and external commercial partners, and systematic falsification of records spanning multiple years. For Southeast Asian readers, particularly those familiar with Hindu temple governance structures, the case illustrates vulnerabilities in asset management systems even at major religious institutions with substantial public oversight. The investigation's findings underscore how sophisticated frauds can persist when institutional safeguards, documentation practices, and accountability mechanisms contain structural weaknesses that multiple conspirators can exploit collaboratively.
