The Kerala High Court has established a structured, time-bound framework for vigilance reporting in religious institutions under the Travancore Devaswom Board, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and the independent oversight role of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner. This judgment clarifies the procedural hierarchy and ensures that critical vigilance findings are not confined to internal administrative channels but are systematically shared with judicially appointed monitors.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from a suo motu proceeding initiated by the Kerala High Court to examine the submission of periodical status reports by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, had been receiving six-monthly vigilance reports under an earlier order (DBP 2/2022), but subsequent directions in SSCR No.28/2023 and SSCR No.3/2025 redirected all such reports exclusively to the TDB Board, bypassing the Special Commissioner. This raised concerns that the Special Commissioner, entrusted with monitoring Sabarimala Temple affairs, would be deprived of real-time information on misconduct, absenteeism, and financial irregularities.
Procedural History
- February 2022: Court issued DBP 2/2022 directing the Chief Vigilance Officer to submit six-monthly reports to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, for placement before the Devaswom Bench.
- July 2024: In SSCR No.28/2023, the Court modified the procedure, directing all vigilance reports to be submitted directly to the President of the TDB, with action taken reports filed in January and June.
- March 2025: In SSCR No.3/2025, the Court further modified the filing deadlines to March and August, but did not restore the Special Commissioner’s access.
- December 2025: Final hearing held; Amicus Curiae raised concerns about exclusion of Special Commissioner from the reporting chain.
Relief Sought
The Special Commissioner sought restoration of his right to receive copies of all vigilance reports pertaining to Sabarimala Temple, arguing that his statutory oversight function would be rendered ineffective without timely access to vigilance data.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, as a judicially mandated oversight authority, is entitled to receive copies of periodical vigilance reports submitted to the Travancore Devaswom Board, even when the Board is designated as the primary recipient.
Arguments Presented
For the Amicus Curiae
Smt. Sayujya Radhakrishnan contended that the Special Commissioner’s role is not merely advisory but constitutionally embedded in the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over temple administration. Excluding him from the reporting chain violates the principle of effective judicial oversight and undermines the purpose of the original order. She cited State of Kerala v. Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple to emphasize that judicially appointed commissioners must have unfettered access to information to discharge their duties.
For the Travancore Devaswom Board
The Standing Counsel argued that the Board, as the administrative authority, has the exclusive right to receive and act upon vigilance reports. He contended that duplicating reports to the Special Commissioner would create administrative burden and redundancy, especially given the volume of reports during peak pilgrimage seasons. He relied on Union of India v. R. S. Nayak to assert that administrative autonomy must be respected unless expressly overridden by court order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful review of its own prior orders and the functional roles of the entities involved. It recognized that while the Board is the administrative body responsible for disciplinary action, the Special Commissioner is a judicially created watchdog with a specific mandate to monitor Sabarimala Temple. The Court held that administrative convenience cannot override judicial oversight.
"The Special Commissioner is not a mere observer but an extension of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. Denying him access to vigilance reports would render his role symbolic rather than substantive."
The Court distinguished between the Board’s role in initiating action and the Commissioner’s role in ensuring accountability. It emphasized that the principle of separation of functions - where the investigator reports to both the administrator and the overseer - is essential to prevent institutional capture. The Court also noted that the volume of reports during Mandala-Makaravilakku season was not a valid reason to exclude oversight, as the new quarterly system reduces burden while enhancing frequency.
The Court further clarified that the Special Commissioner’s authority to report matters outside the periodic schedule remains intact, reinforcing that his powers are non-derogable and complementary, not subordinate.
The Verdict
The Special Commissioner prevailed. The Court held that periodic vigilance reports must be simultaneously submitted to both the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, and that the Commissioner’s access to such reports is essential to uphold judicial oversight. The Court issued comprehensive guidelines to operationalize this principle.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Oversight Bodies Must Receive Direct Reports
- Practitioners must ensure that any judicially appointed monitor (e.g., Special Commissioners, Ombudsmen) receives direct copies of investigative or vigilance reports, even if another body is the primary recipient.
- Administrative bodies cannot unilaterally restrict information flow to oversight authorities without court authorization.
- Failure to provide such access may render subsequent disciplinary actions vulnerable to challenge on grounds of procedural unfairness.
Quarterly Reporting Enhances Accountability
- Institutions under judicial supervision must adopt quarterly reporting cycles where feasible, to ensure continuous accountability rather than biannual delays.
- Deadlines for submission and action must be fixed and published to prevent arbitrary delays.
- Action taken reports must be filed with the supervising court within strict timelines to maintain judicial control.
Judicial Oversight Is Non-Negotiable
- The Court reaffirmed that judicially mandated oversight roles cannot be diluted by administrative convenience.
- Any attempt to bypass or marginalize such roles - whether through procedural changes or informal practices - will be struck down as contrary to the rule of law and separation of powers.
- This precedent applies to all quasi-judicial commissions, temple oversight bodies, and public institution monitors appointed by courts.
