Devaswom Vigilance Report Confirms Gold Theft at Sabarimala Temple, Details Out

Asianet News has obtained details of the interim investigation report submitted by the Devaswom Vigilance to the High Court regarding the Sabarimala gold plating controversy. The report states that a gold robbery took place.

Thiruvananthapuram: Explosive details have emerged from the interim investigation report submitted by the Devaswom Vigilance to the Kerala High Court regarding the Sabarimala gold plating controversy. The findings confirm that gold offered at the temple was stolen, pointing to what investigators describe as a “major conspiracy.”

Add Asianet Newsable as a Preferred Source

Asianet News, which first exposed the controversy, has obtained the contents of the report. Vigilance officers discovered a significant shortfall in the gold used to plate the Dwarapalaka sculptures. In 2019, when the plates were handed over to Unnikrishnan Potti, they contained one and a half kilos of gold. However, when returned, only 394 grams remained.

The report directly challenges the version presented by both the Travancore Devaswom Board and Unnikrishnan Potti, who maintained that the plates were copper when transferred to him. Devaswom Vigilance established that back in 1998–99, under the sponsorship of UB Group chairman Vijay Mallya, the Dwarapalaka sculptures alone had been plated with one and a half kilos of gold, while eight sheets in the sanctum sanctorum carried four kilos in total.

In 2019, Unnikrishnan Potti received all the gold-plated Dwarapalaka plates and two of the eight side plates. When the Dwarapalaka plates were returned, the gold weight had dropped dramatically. The quantity of gold remaining on the side plates has not yet been confirmed, and Vigilance says this needs thorough examination and accurate measurement.

Former Devaswom President A. Padmakumar Under Scrutiny

The report also casts suspicion on former Travancore Devaswom Board President A. Padmakumar. It notes that the gold plates were handed to Unnikrishnan Potti in July 2019 – just a month after Unnikrishnan Potty had emailed Padmakumar from his Yahoo account asking for details about the gold. The Vigilance describes a “deep mystery” surrounding how Potty was granted permission to take the plates out against the rules and later returned them without proper inspection.

While the investigation is ongoing, the interim report was submitted to the High Court due to the seriousness of the findings obtained so far.

Minister VN Vasavan Welcomes Court-Led Probe

Responding to the developments, Devaswom Minister VN Vasavan voiced full support for the High Court’s decision to appoint an investigation team. He praised the court’s intervention, stressing that there is strict judicial oversight over all matters related to the Travancore Devaswom Board.

Vasavan recounted that in 2019, Unnikrishnan Potti had been trusted with repair work and later lodged a complaint before the Global Ayyappa Sangamam. Vigilance recovered the pedestal in question from the home of Unnikrishnan Potty’s sister. He suggested that the controversy ignited partly because of perceptions that the Global Ayyappa Sangamam had benefited from the arrangement.

The minister called for a comprehensive probe covering events from 1998 to 2025, assuring full cooperation from the government. He also reiterated that neither the government nor the Devaswom department had any role in the matter, apart from providing assistance during the pilgrimage season and financial help to the Board – without taking any funds from it.

Criticism of Opposition’s Assembly Boycott

In a joint press conference, Vasavan and Speaker MB Rajesh criticized the opposition’s decision to boycott the assembly over the Sabarimala issue without formally submitting an adjournment motion.

Rajesh questioned the logic of claiming the government avoided discussion when the opposition had not requested one. He pointed out that their previous notice on September 19 was rejected by the Speaker, but they still participated in proceedings afterward. In light of this new situation, they could have submitted a fresh notice – a simple process requiring only minor amendments.

“If they truly had conviction, they should have protested after giving the notice,” Rajesh remarked.

Leave a Comment