The Court’s Directive and Immediate Implications
Today opposition lawyers filed petitions in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala courts invoking the Kesavananda Bharati basic‑structure doctrine to contest the use of caste‑based narratives in the 2024 election and the investigative actions in the Sabarimala gold‑theft case. The filings underscore the lasting impact of the 1973 judgment in limiting legislative and executive power when fundamental constitutional features are at stake. The petitions claim that the challenged measures could affect over 10 million voters and devotees across the two states.
- •Kerala High Court Orders SIT to Probe Sabarimala Gold Theft: Judicial Review in Action
Kerala High Court Orders SIT to Probe Sabarimala Gold Theft: Judicial Review in Action
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to file a criminal case against two senior leaders of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) for alleged misappropriation of gold from the Sabarimala shrine. The order implicates former Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) president P S Prasanth and former board member A Ajikumar, extending investigations that began with a 2019 theft allegation during the first Pinarayi Vijayan‑led LDF government. The latest charge concerns the transport of gold‑clad idols to Chennai in 2023, allegedly to conceal pilferage.
The High Court’s order follows a series of investigations that have already seen the arrest of CPI(M) leader A Padmakumar. The SIT, set up by the state, is now required to register a fresh FIR against the two current suspects.
- ▸P S Prasanth – CPI(M) leader, TDB president (2023‑2025).
- ▸A Ajikumar – CPI leader, former TDB member (2023‑2025).
- ▸Date of order – Monday, 30 June 2026.
- ▸Original theft – Alleged in 2019; idols originally gold‑clad in 1998.
- ▸New allegation – Transport of idols to a Chennai firm in 2023, with missing gold on return.
The court’s directive compels the SIT to treat the matter as a criminal conspiracy, signalling that high‑level officials cannot shield temple assets from scrutiny.
Temple Administration and the Legal Framework
Sabarimala is administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board, a statutory body created under the Travancore Devaswom Board Act 1950. The Act empowers the board to manage temple properties, conduct rituals, and oversee finances, but it also subjects the board to state oversight and judicial review.
- ▸The Act designates the board as a public trust responsible for safeguarding temple assets.
- ▸It mandates periodic audits and requires that any transfer of temple property receive prior approval from the state government.
- ▸The board’s decisions are reviewable under the Indian Constitution, particularly when allegations of corruption arise.
Thus, the alleged gold theft falls squarely within the board’s statutory duties, and the High Court’s intervention is anchored in the Act’s accountability provisions.
Judicial Review: From Article 226 to the Basic Structure Doctrine
India’s Constitution equips High Courts with supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, allowing them to issue writs against any public authority that violates law or exceeds its powers. The Kerala High Court’s order exemplifies this power, as it scrutinises the TDB’s administrative actions.
- ▸Article 226 authorises High Courts to issue writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quashing, and attachment.
- ▸Article 32 provides the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights, serving as a backstop when High Courts are exhausted.
The principle that courts can curb executive excesses was cemented in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), where the Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine holds that certain core features of the Constitution—such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review—cannot be altered by parliamentary amendment.
- ▸The doctrine ensures that judicial review remains a “basic structure” element, protecting citizens against unchecked administrative authority.
- ▸In the
Tags
Concepts Mentioned
Kesavananda Bharati Case
The Kesavananda Bharati Case is a landmark Supreme Court judgment. It established the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. The 1973 case ruled that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution's fundamental features.
Basic Structure Doctrine
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial principle in Indian constitutional law that says certain core features of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament, even via amendment. It preserves the Constitution's core identity and limits legislative power. The Supreme Court first articulated it in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, striking down amendments that threatened the democratic and secular framework.
Article 226
Article 226 is a constitutional provision granting high courts judicial review powers. It is significant for ensuring constitutional governance. The Delhi High Court has used it to hear various public interest litigations.
Travancore Devaswom Board Act 1950
The Travancore Devaswom Board Act of 1950 established a statutory body to manage and administer Hindu temples in the former princely state of Travancore, now part of Kerala. It transferred temple assets and rituals from royal control to a board of appointed members, ensuring systematic upkeep and public accountability. For example, the board oversees the famous Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Log in to like, comment, and join the discussion.