Sabarimala Cleanliness Project Reinstatement Risks Conflict with Kerala High Court

Contradicting the Judicial Mandate

The Kerala government finds itself in a precarious legal position following its decision on July 24, 2026, to revive the Punyam Poonkavanam project. By permitting the restoration of this community initiative, the state may be acting in direct defiance of a February 2025 order from the Devaswom Bench of the Kerala High Court. That ruling explicitly instructed the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Kerala Police to notify pilgrims that the project was no longer part of official police operations. The court further prohibited the use of the project's name for any Sabarimala-related activities.

Allegations of Financial Irregularities and Scope Creep

The project, originally designed to maintain hygiene at the Sannidhanam and Pampa river through devotee participation, became the subject of a scathing inquiry led by M.R. Ajithkumar, the former Chief Police Coordinator for Sabarimala. According to the inquiry findings, the program operated beyond the legitimate scope of the Kerala Police. Key details from the report include:

• Evidence that project coordinators solicited funds and goods from private entities and individuals.
• Suspicions regarding the funding of extensive domestic and international travel by active and retired officers involved in the scheme.
• Observations that the department lacked oversight, as private individuals across various states utilized the Kerala Police banner to run the program.
• Recommendations for a specialized probe by the State Crime Branch, alongside Vigilance or CBI investigations into financial transactions.

Exoneration and the Threat of Contempt

Despite these serious allegations, the state government recently exonerated Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) P. Vijayan, concluding that no evidence of misconduct or authority misuse existed. The government characterized the program as an "exemplary community initiative." However, judicial sources warn that simply clearing an official does not nullify the High Court's standing order. Officials responsible for the restoration order could face contempt of court charges. Furthermore, if the state now deems the Ajithkumar report baseless, legal experts suggest they are obligated to pursue action under Section 212 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for filing a false report, a charge carrying potential jail time or fines.

Current Status at the Shrine

Travancore Devaswom Board President K. Jayakumar confirmed that the board had previously complied with the court by issuing advisories and halting the program. The government’s move to restart the initiative now creates a complex friction between executive preferences and judicial directives regarding the administration of the pilgrimage site.

Source: The Hindu — News