A hearing in the bail pleas by some of those accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case on Monday saw the Kerala High Court suggest that the State could consider enacting a special law with penal provisions to protect properties belonging to Hindu temples [Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v State of Kerala and connected cases].

Justice A Badharudeen suggested that Additional Director General of Prosecution (ADGP) Gracious Kuriakose could recommend to the State that a Kerala State Devaswom Property Protection and Preservation Act may be enacted to curb the growing instances of misappropriation of temple assets.

"You should have a specific statute ... Many cases are coming and it shall have the duty to protect the Devaswom properties for the interest of believers. For that, there must be an enactment, in my view. That is only I’m pointing out because you are ADGP, you can suggest to the government," the judge said.

Justice Badharudeen also observed that the existing Devaswom Manual and internal temple guidelines were inadequate as they only led to disciplinary actions against erring persons.

He, therefore, suggested the need for a dedicated statutory framework with stringent penal provisions to protect temple properties.

"Why can't you go for some rules? Devaswom Management rules, so that some penal provisions can also be incorporated. Why don't you enact a Kerala State's Devaswom Property Protection and Preservation Act? Various instances in temples are coming with a history of misappropriation. You may think of legislation. (Devaswom) Manual by itself may not be enough ... Violation of the manual will only lead to disciplinary action, not an offence," the Judge orally remarked.

The suggestion was made while the Court was hearing bail pleas filed by Karnataka-based jeweller Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan, former Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) President and senior CPI(M) leader A Padmaumar and former TDB administrative officer B Murari Babu - all accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case.

The bail pleas were filed in connection with the misappropriation of gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and the door frames of the Sreekovil at the Sabarimala temple.

The gold on these temple properties was found to be 4 kilograms lighter after they were returned to the temple following certain repair works.

The prime accused in the case is Unnikrishnan Potti, who sponsored the repair work. It was alleged that Potti was able to gain such access to the gold due to irregularities committed by TDB officials who were made accused alongside Potti in the criminal case registered in the matter.

Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu appeared for former TDB officials Padmakumar and Govardhan yesterday.

He argued that the allegation against Padmakumar was only in relation to the violation of the Devaswom Manual, where he had mistakenly written "copper plates" in the official documents instead of "gold-clad copper plates", which could not be considered as a crime.

The Judge, however, was skeptical about this argument. He queried why the alleged misuse of the office entrusted to the TDB official could not lead to criminal liability.

"Mere violation of the manual doesn't by itself make an offence," the Court acknowledged.

However, he added,

"But when a duty is bestowed ... by getting such an assignment and then doing a criminal act in dereliction of the order, instead of performing the duty assigned, then that becomes an offence."

Govardhan's counsel too stressed that he had no role in the alleged misappropriation except that he paid for the restoration of the temple items and donated multiple times to the temple, being an ardent devotee of Lord Ayappa.

The senior counsel added that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating the case had visited Govardhan's shop and residence on October 24, 2025 and forcefully took 474.97 grams of 24-karat, imported gold.

He further submitted that both Govardhan and Padmakumar had been in custody despite having cooperated with the investigation and were entitled to bail.

Advocate S Rajeev, appearing for Murari Babu, submitted that his client had been in custody for 81 days and that custodial interrogation was no longer required.

The State's ADGP has opposed the bail pleas of all three accused.

The Court, meanwhile, also strongly criticised the TDB as well for seemingly having allowed the prime accused Unnikrishnan Potti to handle temple properties in violation of the Manual.

The Court even expressed displeasure over the SIT's failure to arrest Devaswom Board member KP Shankardas, who is allegedly hospitalised.

"What nonsense is happening in this State?" the judge remarked orally.

After hearing all arguments, the Court has reserved its verdict in the three bail pleas filed by Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan, A Padmaumar and B Murari Babu.