What Happened on the Ground

Today the Kerala government issued an order to resume the ‘Punyam Poonkavanam’ project in Sabarimala despite a February 2025 Kerala High Court ruling prohibiting it. The move revives debate over the Kesavananda Bharati “basic structure” doctrine, which limits state actions that may alter fundamental constitutional features. Legal experts note that the defiance could trigger a contempt petition and a potential Supreme Court review, marking the first post‑2020 test of the doctrine in a religious‑environment context.

•Kerala Govt Restores ‘Punyam Poonkavanam’ Project: Legal Clash Over Court Order

Kerala Govt Restores ‘Punyam Poonkavanam’ Project: Legal Clash Over Court Order

The Kerala government on July 24 2026 cleared the way for the revival of the “Punyam Poonkavanam” clean‑up drive at Sabarimala, despite a February 2025 directive from the Kerala High Court that barred the scheme from any police‑bandobast activity. The move has sparked fresh accusations of contempt and raises questions about the limits of executive power under India’s constitutional framework.

The state cabinet exonerated Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) P. Vijayan of all allegations linked to the controversial clean‑up initiative, describing the project as an “exemplary community initiative by the Kerala Police in Sabarimala.”

▸The High Court order of February 2025 required the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Kerala Police to issue an advisory that the project was not part of the Police Bandobast Scheme.
▸The order also stipulated that the name “Punyam Poonkavanam” could not be used for any activity connected with Sabarimala.
▸The government’s July 24 order effectively reversed the advisory, allowing the project to resume under the same name.

Legal Framework Governing the Dispute

The controversy pivots on two constitutional provisions that empower courts to supervise administrative actions: Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution. While Article 32 provides for direct petition to the Supreme Court, Article 226 authorises High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.

▸The February 2025 order was issued under Article 226, invoking the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over state actions.
▸The High Court’s directive is binding on the state government until set aside by a higher authority or a subsequent judgment.
▸Violation of a High Court order can attract contempt proceedings, a power entrenched in the Indian judicial system.

Judicial Review and the Basic Structure Doctrine

The underlying constitutional principle at stake is the Basic Structure Doctrine articulated in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973). The doctrine holds that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited; it cannot alter the basic structure, which includes the rule of law and the separation of powers.

▸Judicial review of executive actions is a core element of the basic structure, ensuring that administrative measures do not eclipse constitutional mandates.
▸By permitting the project to continue against a clear High Court order, the state risks infringing the rule‑of‑law component of the basic structure.
▸If the High Court’s order is flouted, the judiciary may invoke contempt powers, reinforcing the supremacy of constitutional adjudication over executive discretion.

Did You Know? The offence of filing a false report to a court under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 212) carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine of ₹5,000 – a relatively modest sanction given the gravity of undermining judicial authority.

Implications for Governance and Accountability

The episode highlights the tension between state‑level initiatives aimed at environmental stewardship and the procedural safeguards designed to prevent misuse of police resources. Allegations of illegal fund collection and activities beyond the police’s statutory remit have already tainted the “Punyam Poonkavanam” scheme.

▸The controversy may prompt the Kerala government to seek a fresh judicial review, potentially escalating the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 32.
▸Opposition parties have begun demanding accountability from the ministers overseeing the police and the Devaswom Board, signalling a broader political fallout.
▸A contempt finding could set a precedent for stricter enforcement of High Court orders, reinforcing judicial oversight over state‑run schemes.

Way Forward: Balancing Development and Constitutional Fidelity

To avert a protracted legal battle, the state could consider re‑branding the initiative and seeking a fresh advisory that complies with the High Court’s earlier stipulations. Simultaneously, a transparent audit of the scheme’s finances would address concerns about illegal fund collection.

▸An independent committee, perhaps headed by a retired judge, could examine whether the project’s activities fall within the permissible scope of police‑bandobast duties.
▸If the committee recommends compliance, the government can issue a revised order that respects the court’s earlier injunction while preserving the environmental objectives.
▸Ultimately, adherence to the basic structure principles will safeguard both the rule of law and the credibility of state‑led public‑service programmes.