When the hereditary Tantri of Sabarimala, Kandararu Rajeevaru, walked out on bail on February 18, the story around the gold plating case took a dramatic turn.
On the day he was arrested - January 9 - outside the Crime Branch office in Thiruvananthapuram, dust had settled on the seized vehicle parked there. On that dusty surface, a writer who was waiting for hours following his questioning inside the office, scribbled two words: "Chief Thief?" It stemmed from a space of disbelief whether the priest who is seen ritualistically as the father of the diety of Sabarimala would be involved in theft of the gold.
Later, when the arrest was marked, it was a moment of deep disbelief for millions of Sabarimala devotees. For them, the Tantri of the holy shrine is not just a priest. He represents faith, continuity and sacred tradition. In emotional terms, he is to Sabarimala what a spiritual shepherd is to Catholic Christianity.
For weeks, the arrest of one of the most respected religious figures linked to the hill shrine had shocked devotees and dominated headlines. But the bail order from a Kollam Vigilance Court has shifted attention away from the allegations and towards the investigation itself.
The Tantri was arrested by the Special Investigation Team probing alleged irregularities related to gold-plated encasings at the temple. Investigators claimed he had knowledge of the removal of artefacts and failed to intervene. In their remand report, the SIT argued that his presence during key events and his signature on certain documents showed involvement.
However, the court's observations tell a different story.
One of the most striking points in the order is that the Tantri was not named in the FIR initially. The court records that "the petitioner was not mentioned in any of the FIRs initially and his role was introduced only later during investigation." For many observers, this raises the first serious question: Why was the priest added as an accused only after the investigation had already progressed?
The court then examined his role at the temple and found a clear distinction between ritual authority and administrative power. It noted that his responsibilities were largely confined to religious ceremonies and traditions, with no evidence showing that he exercised control over finances, contracts or repair works. "The role of the petitioner appears confined to religious rituals and there is no material showing administrative or financial control," the order says.
This observation weakens one of the key arguments put forward by the SIT, which suggested that as the highest religious authority, he should have prevented the alleged irregularities.
Another important faultline identified by the court relates to motive. Investigators could not show that the Tantri gained financially or personally from any alleged wrongdoing. The order clearly states that "no material is produced to show that the petitioner derived any financial gain or had active participation in the alleged acts."
The court also questioned the logic used by investigators. It was observed that signing routine documents or remaining silent cannot automatically be treated as proof of conspiracy. "Mere signing of documents or absence of objection cannot by itself establish criminal intent" it said.
Taken together, these findings paint a picture of an investigation that may have stretched its interpretation to include a figure whose role was more symbolic than operational.
The case has also played out against a politically charged background. Activist Rahul Easwar claimed that the Tantri was specifically targeted because he had earlier opposed attempts by the Kerala government under Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to allow women of menstrual age to enter the sanctum. Easwar described the case as an act of vengeance.
While such claims remain political opinion and are not part of the court's findings, the order's language has already reshaped public perception.
It records that the allegations against him appear to be "unsupported by convincing material."
The larger investigation into the gold case will continue. Yet the bail order leaves behind a powerful question. In the rush to build a larger conspiracy, did investigators lose direction and pull in a figure whose role did not justify criminal liability?
For many readers, the strongest message from the court is simple. Reputation and position alone cannot make someone guilty. Evidence must lead the way. And in this case, the order suggests that the path followed by investigators may have strayed far from that principle.
For weeks, the public saw only accusation and spectacle. Now, after the bail order, the writing on the wall appears clearer than ever. Investigations cannot move on assumptions or pressure. They must move on to proof.
Whether the investigators crossed the line, only time will tell, but the consequences are not just legal. They are deeply complicated, especially if it connects tradition and faith of millions.
The dust on that seized car outside the Crime Branch office may have been wiped clean. The words scribbled on it could have faded with time, but the consequences of it on the chief priest and the jolt to his position cut deep. As for the Tantri, he spent 41 days in judicial custody before securing bail. Incidentally, 41 days is also the traditional duration of the Sabarimala vratham, the period of penance and spiritual preparation that devotees undertake before climbing the sacred hill.
