Former TDB President PS Prashanth Charged in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case
Indiadailyupdate.com – In a significant development, Former TDB President PS Prashanth has been formally named as an accused in the ongoing Sabarimala gold theft case, which has drawn widespread attention to the governance of the revered temple. The legal action stems from the unauthorized removal of gold-covered copper cladding from the Sabarimala temple, a practice that allegedly occurred under Prashanth’s leadership. His inclusion in the case marks the fourth major figure implicated, following the release of a Special Commissioner’s report detailing the sequence of events leading to the theft. The controversy, which began in 2019, escalated in September 2025 when the cladding was again entrusted to sponsor Unnikrishnan Potty for repairs, sparking allegations of mismanagement and corruption.
Background of the Sabarimala Gold Theft Case
The Sabarimala gold theft case has its roots in the 2019 decision by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to transfer the gold-plated copper layers from the Dwarapalaka idols for “maintenance” purposes. This move, which was later questioned, set the stage for the controversy that unfolded in 2025. Under Prashanth’s tenure as TDB president, the cladding was handed over to Chennai-based Smart Creations for restoration work, a step that critics argue allowed for the gradual siphoning of the gold. The case gained traction after the temple’s gold coverings were reportedly taken without proper authorization, prompting a public outcry and a judicial probe into the matter.
Prasanth has maintained that his designation as an accused is a result of political vendetta, stating that he had no direct involvement in the theft. He pointed out that the gold was removed during his leadership, but the charges are being leveled without sufficient evidence to link him to the offense. This defense has been echoed by his supporters, who argue that the case is being used to undermine his credibility and that the real conspirators remain unidentified.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) has compiled evidence suggesting that all seven accused individuals played a role in the alleged theft. The case, which involves key figures like the late former Sabarimala executive officer Murari Babu and Tantri Kandararu Rajeevaru, has been registered under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 336(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). These legal provisions cover offenses such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, and preparation for commission of an offense. The SIT’s findings indicate that the gold was systematically removed and stored, with Prashanth’s administration being held accountable for the lack of oversight during the process.
Political Implications of the Case
Political analysts have highlighted the potential impact of the Sabarimala gold theft case on the current political landscape of Kerala. The case is believed to have contributed to the loss of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) in the 2026 Assembly elections, as it fueled public discontent against the ruling party’s handling of temple affairs. Prashanth, who was a prominent figure in the CPI(M) party, now finds himself at the center of this controversy, which has raised questions about the transparency and accountability of temple management in the state. Critics argue that the case underscores a growing trend of political interference in religious institutions, while others see it as a necessary step to address financial mismanagement.
The legal proceedings have also brought to light the intricate relationship between the TDB and sponsors like Unnikrishnan Potty. The TDB, which oversees the management of temples in Kerala, has historically relied on sponsors to fund restoration and maintenance projects. However, the gold theft case has exposed vulnerabilities in this system, particularly the lack of scrutiny over the use of temple funds. Prashanth’s administration has been accused of prioritizing financial convenience over cultural preservation, a claim that has resonated strongly with religious groups and the public. The case now serves as a symbol of the broader tensions between tradition and modern governance in the state’s temples.
Despite the charges, Prashanth remains steadfast in his belief that the case is a politically motivated endeavor. He emphasized that the removal of gold cladding was part of a routine maintenance process, with no evidence to suggest intentional theft. This argument has been supported by some legal experts, who note that the prosecution must demonstrate a direct link between Prashanth and the unauthorized removal of the temple’s sacred adornments.
The ongoing investigation into the Sabarimala gold theft case has also prompted a reevaluation of the TDB’s internal structure and decision-making processes. With Prashanth at the helm, the board faced accusations of negligence in overseeing the transfer of gold-plated copper layers. The case has become a focal point for debates on the role of temple administrators in ensuring the preservation of religious artifacts, as well as the need for greater transparency in financial transactions. As the legal battle continues, the focus remains on whether Prashanth’s leadership was instrumental in the theft or if the charges are being levied for political gain.
