The Role of Travancore Devaswom Board and the State: Sabarimala Panchaloha Idol Case Overview

Adv. C‑V Manuvilsan
Meta Description:
Kerala High Court closes SSCR 18/2025 on the Sabarimala Panchaloha idol controversy, orders police investigation and judicial actions. Key facts, timeline, and legal implications.

---

Introduction

The Kerala High Court's suo motu case SSCR 18/2025 is a landmark in how judicial intervention shapes temple management transparency and accountability in religious fundraising. Centered around an unauthorized fundraising campaign for a Panchaloha idol of Lord Ayyappa at the Sabarimala Temple, this case underscored the crucial roles played by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the State of Kerala in regulating temple affairs.

This article provides a comprehensive case overview—tracking its origins, legal journey, and implications for donation regulation in Indian temples.

---

Background

The Travancore Devaswom Board and Its Role

The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), a statutory body, oversees the administration of temples in South Kerala, including the revered Sabarimala Temple. It is responsible for granting permissions, financial oversight, and safeguarding the sanctity of temple activities.

What is a Panchaloha Idol?

A Panchaloha idol is a sacred Hindu statue made of five metals—typically gold, silver, copper, iron, and lead. These idols are traditionally used in temple worship and are considered highly spiritually significant, making their installation a deeply sensitive matter.

---

Sequence of Events

Timeline of the Sabarimala Panchaloha Idol Case

• 21 May 2025: Dr. E.K. Sagadevan, Chairman of Lotus Hospital and representing 150 devotees from Tamil Nadu, wrote to TDB seeking permission to donate a 2-foot, 150 kg Panchaloha idol for installation at Sabarimala Temple.

• July 2025: A permission letter was issued by TDB, which the 7th respondent used to create pamphlets soliciting public donations, displaying QR codes and bank details claiming approvals from both TDB and the Kerala Government.

• 16 July 2025: A Special Commissioner’s report (S.M. No. 18/2025) raised concerns over unauthorized fundraising and misleading claims.

• 23 July 2025: The Kerala High Court initiated suo motu proceedings, registering SSCR 18/2025.

• 28 July 2025: TDB formally revoked the permission granted to Dr. Sagadevan.

• 31 July 2025: Pamba Police Station registered Crime No. 253/2025 under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, concerning illegal public fundraising.

Funds Collected

Between 7 July and 18 July 2025, a total of ₹6,14,007 was transferred into an account associated with Rotary Freedom India Trust via RTGS, NEFT, and UPI. Subsequently, on 23 July, ICICI Bank froze the account to prevent further misuse.

---

Judgment on 16 September 2025

Kerala High Court Verdict in SSCR 18/2025

The bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar decided to close the suo motu case after noting two major developments:

1. TDB revoked the previously granted permission for idol installation.

2. Dr. Sagadevan voluntarily agreed to defer the project.

Court’s Directions

• Investigation Completion: Crime No. 253/2025 must be concluded within four months.

• Magistrate Oversight: The jurisdictional magistrate is to act under Section 193 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

• Handling of Seized Funds: All funds must be deposited before the court, which shall decide their lawful use.

---

Legal Issues & Implications

Unauthorized Fundraising at Temples

Using the TDB’s name to solicit funds without full approval violates trust and accountability, setting a precedent on what constitutes legal vs illegal temple fundraising in India.

Regulatory Oversight by TDB and the State

While TDB’s initial approval may have been in good faith, the case stresses the importance of transparent documentation, public clarification, and strict control over religious fundraisers.

Legal Accountability

The case illustrates how religious devotion cannot override legal standards. With criminal charges and fund freezes, the judiciary ensured that religious fervor did not excuse procedural violations.

---

What Remains to Be Done

Police Investigation

The Kerala High Court emphasized timely and thorough investigation by the police to identify all contributors and trace funds collected under false pretenses.

Judicial Follow-Up

The jurisdictional magistrate is expected to adjudicate fund seizures and any related violations, based on reports submitted post-investigation.

Need for Policy Reforms

This case raises a call for structured policy reforms around temple donations, particularly involving digital fundraising (QR codes, UPI, etc.), to prevent future misuse.

---

Conclusion

The Sabarimala Panchaloha Idol case (SSCR 18/2025) reflects the ongoing tension between devotional practices and legal regulations in temple management. It highlighted the responsibilities of statutory temple bodies like TDB, the active role of the judiciary, and the increasing importance of regulating digital donations in religious spaces.

For devotees, donors, and temple authorities alike, this case serves as a reminder that transparency, accountability, and legality must guide religious acts in public institutions.

---

FAQs

1. What is a “suo motu” case?

A suo motu case is initiated by a court on its own, without any formal petition, often when public interest or potential legal violations are evident.

2. Who is Dr. E. K. Sagadevan?

He is the Chairman of Lotus Hospital and the 7th respondent in the case, who led the fundraising and installation efforts on behalf of devotees from Erode.

3. What is a Panchaloha idol?

A Panchaloha idol is a Hindu religious statue made from an alloy of five metals. It is considered spiritually powerful and is often installed in temples.

4. What laws were cited in this case?

Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were invoked concerning unauthorized fundraising and judicial process.

5. Will this affect future temple donations?

Yes. The case may lead to tighter regulations and oversight mechanisms around digital and public fundraising for religious institutions in India.