The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a plea before the Kerala High Court challenging a trial court's refusal to issue it certified copies of the First Information Report (FIR) and First Information Statement (FIS) in the Sabarimala gold misappropriation case [Directorate of Enforcement v State of Kerala].
The ED has argued that the magistrate's decision has obstructed it from initiating a money laundering probe in the gold theft case.
In its plea, the Central agency highlighted allegations of serious financial impropriety and misappropriation of gold in the case by the prime accused, Unnikrishnan Potty, and others. All these allegations warrant a money laundering probe by the ED, it has contended.
The ED has submitted that there is credible information from multiple sources, as well as in interim orders, passed by the High Court in suo motu proceedings, to indicate that temple officials and others forged documents and diverted valuable gold items from the Sabarimala temple.
Such acts, according to the ED, amount to serious offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, both of which are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
"It is prima facie revealed that offence of ‘Money Laundering’ as defined under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has taken place consequent to the above stated predicate cases," the ED's petition stated.
The gold theft case concerns allegations that several kilograms of gold went missing from plates covering Dwarapalaka idols and door frames that lead to the Sreekovil at the Sabarimala temple, after they were sent for repair work.
A man named Unnikrishnan Potti had undertaken to sponsor the repair work, which was entrusted to a Chennai firm.
However, controversy arose after several kilograms of gold were found to be missing when the plates were measured after the repair work. Later, some of the gold was allegedly recovered by the authorities from Potti's sister's house.
A criminal case registered on the High Court's orders in the matter is presently being investigated by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up last month. Potti is presently under arrest. The High Court has also been monitoring the progress of the SIT probe.
After the criminal case was registered on October 10, 2025, the ED applied for certified copies of the FIR and FIS in the case, under Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.
However, on October 17, the judicial magistrate first class at Ranni dismissed the ED's application after noting that the High Court had asked the SIT to investigate all aspects of the case after noting the sensitive nature of the matter.
The ED has challenged this order before the High Court. The ED has contended that the magistrate misinterpreted the High Court's interim direction, which only barred media trials and parallel investigations by the press.
The High Court has not prohibited a separate probe under a special statute like the PMLA, the ED has argued.
"The Learned Magistrate ought to have seen that Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a special statute, and investigation under the said Act is with respect to the Proceeds of Crime out of the scheduled offence. The Learned Magistrate ought to have understood the purpose and extent of the interim order passed by the Division Bench, and ought to have applied his mind before citing the interim order as a reason to reject the application for certified copy of the FIR," the ED added in its plea.
The petition has been filed through the ED's standing counsel Jaishankar V Nair.