The ED has also started an investigation into the Sabarimala gold theft case. As part of the probe, the ED has begun preliminary data collection. Meanwhile, a copy of the final report by the Devaswom Vigilance has also been released.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has stepped in to investigate the Sabarimala gold theft, beginning with preliminary data collection following a case registered by a special investigation team into the missing temple gold. This comes as Asianet News accessed a Devaswom Vigilance report submitted to the High Court, which sheds new light on the case. The report casts suspicion on the Devaswom Board itself, stating it is implausible that top board officials were unaware of the illegal acts by their subordinates. The findings suggest that the conspiracy likely reached higher levels, questioning whether senior officials gave instructions or exerted pressure in 2019.
FIR Names Senior Officials
The Vigilance report highlights the unauthorized removal of gold by Unnikrishnan Potti for plating work outside the Sabarimala Devaswom, attributing this as a failure by the 2019 board. It calls for action against the board, arguing the misstep cannot be pinned solely on lower officials. As the investigation deepens, focus has expanded to senior members of the Devaswom Board. In the most recent FIR concerning the gold theft, board members from 2019—including former president A. Padmakumar, Shankar Das, and K. Raghavan—have been listed as accused, though their names are not specified in the document. The FIR states that the board, during Padmakumar’s leadership, had knowledge of the gold plates being removed in 2019. The accused are alleged to have conspired to defraud the board, with the vigilance probe concluding that the loss resulted directly from their actions or oversight.
Former President Responds
Responding to the developments, A. Padmakumar said he was unaware of the FIR and maintained that he had acted within the law during his tenure. He insisted there were no unlawful actions during his term and likened the situation to blaming a homeowner for a theft committed in their absence. He stated that neither he nor the Devaswom Board committed any lapses, and he is willing to cooperate legally with any probe. Padmakumar further defended his position by noting that Unnikrishnan Potti began working at Sabarimala before his presidency and even questioned Potti’s prior roles at other temples. He added that only the media had reached out to him so far and welcomed the court’s scrutiny into any alleged mistakes.