Court says apprehension based on media report was misconceived as it had already directed extension of officers’ tenure in earlier proceedings.
The Kerala High Court has closed a writ petition filed by a devotee seeking to prevent the replacement, transfer, or substantial alteration of the Devaswom Vigilance Investigation Team at Sabarimala while an investigation into alleged gold theft and related irregularities is pending.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar heard the petition filed by K. Surendran, who claimed to be a Hindu devotee and follower of Lord Ayyappa. The petitioner argued that the existing vigilance team should be kept intact until the investigation is completed, and sought directions to ensure continuity of the officers whose tenure had already been extended by the Court in earlier proceedings.
The petition was based on a media report suggesting that police action was being taken in violation of the High Court’s directions in SSCR No. 21 of 2026. However, the Court noted that it had already been monitoring the matter and had issued specific directions in that case regarding the extension of the tenure of officers in the Devaswom Vigilance till 31 January 2027, along with the appointment of one Sub-Inspector. The Court also recorded that consequential orders had been passed in line with those directions.
In light of these earlier orders, the Bench held that the petitioner’s apprehension was misconceived. Finding no basis for interference, the Court closed the writ petition.
The ruling underscores that where the Court is already seized of and monitoring an issue, a fresh petition based on an unverified media report may not be maintainable if the concern has already been addressed through existing judicial directions.
Bottom Line :
Writ petition based on a media report alleging likely transfer/replacement of Devaswom Vigilance Investigation Team at Sabarimala during pendency of investigation into alleged gold theft and irregularities - When High Court had already issued specific directions in earlier proceedings regarding extension of tenure of officers and consequential orders had also been issued, apprehension of petitioner was held misconceived and writ petition was closed.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
K. Surendran v. State of Kerala, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987126
