Kerala HC Order Risked: Punyam Poonkavanam Project in Sabarimala Violates Court Directive

28 Jul Kerala HC Order Risked: Punyam Poonkavanam Project in Sabarimala Violates Court Directive

Subject Relevance — Where This Topic Fits

• GS Paper II — Polity and Governance: Judicial Review and Executive Accountability  |  GS Paper IV — Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude: Conflict of Interest and Public Trust
• Prelims: Kerala High Court, Travancore Devaswom Board, Sabarimala pilgrimage, Police Bandobast Scheme, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 212, Mandalam-Makaravilakku festival
• Essay: Judicial activism in ensuring public accountability: A case study of Sabarimala, The role of constitutional institutions in preserving the sanctity of religious sites

Quick Revision: The Kerala High Court’s February 2025 order explicitly prohibits the use of the Punyam Poonkavanam project’s name in Sabarimala activities and clarifies its exclusion from the Police Bandobast Scheme, making any revival of the project without judicial approval a potential contempt of court.

Why is this in the news?

The restoration of the Punyam Poonkavanam project at Sabarimala has become a subject of legal contention following the Kerala High Court’s directive in February 2025, which explicitly prohibited the use of the project’s name in connection with Sabarimala activities and clarified its non-inclusion in the Police Bandobast Scheme. The Kerala government’s decision to revive the project, despite the court’s order, raises serious questions about executive compliance with judicial directives and the potential for contempt of court proceedings.

Background

• The Punyam Poonkavanam project was initiated as a community-driven initiative to maintain cleanliness in and around the Sabarimala Sannidhanam, Pampa, and adjacent areas, with active participation from devotees.
• In February 2025, the Kerala High Court’s Devaswom Bench, while considering an inquiry report by then Additional Director General of Police M.R. Ajithkumar, issued a directive prohibiting the use of the project’s name in Sabarimala-related activities and clarifying its exclusion from the Police Bandobast Scheme, effective from the Mandalam-Makaravilakku festival season of 2023-24.
• Allegations of illegal funds collection and activities exceeding the scope of the Kerala Police’s mandate have plagued the project, with the inquiry report noting that coordinators solicited funds from private individuals and organisations, including travel to foreign countries by serving and retired police officers.
• The Kerala government, on July 24, 2026, exonerated P. Vijayan, Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), of all allegations related to the project and permitted its continuation, citing it as an ‘exemplary community initiative by the Kerala Police’.
• Judicial sources have cautioned that the government’s decision to restore the project risks violating the Kerala High Court’s order, potentially amounting to contempt of court, as the court’s directive remains in force.

What is the Punyam Poonkavanam Project?

• The Punyam Poonkavanam project was launched as a community participation initiative to maintain cleanliness and hygiene in and around the Sabarimala temple, Pampa, and its environs, particularly during the Mandalam-Makaravilakku pilgrimage season.
• The project involved the active participation of devotees, volunteers, and police personnel in waste management, sanitation drives, and environmental conservation efforts in the Sabarimala region.
• The initiative was framed as a model of public-private partnership, with the Kerala Police playing a coordinating role in mobilising resources and ensuring the project’s implementation.
• However, the project attracted controversy due to allegations of unauthorised fund collection from private individuals and organisations, including domestic and international travel by serving and retired police officers, raising concerns about financial impropriety and misuse of authority.
• The Kerala High Court, in its February 2025 order, explicitly barred the use of the project’s name in connection with Sabarimala activities and clarified that it was not part of the Police Bandobast Scheme, which is a statutory arrangement for managing law and order during pilgrimage seasons.
• The project’s revival by the Kerala government, despite the court’s order, has reignited debates on the balance between executive discretion and judicial oversight in matters of public administration and religious governance.
• The inquiry report by M.R. Ajithkumar, former Additional Director General of Police, highlighted systemic irregularities, including unauthorised fundraising and activities beyond the project’s stated objectives, which the court relied upon to issue its directive.
• The project’s legal and administrative challenges underscore the need for transparent governance in projects involving public funds, police participation, and religious sites, particularly in ecologically and socially sensitive regions like Sabarimala.

Key Features

Why it Matters

Administrative and Governance

• Demonstrates the tension between executive decisions and judicial oversight in public projects, particularly those involving religious sites and mass gatherings.
• Raises questions about the accountability of police-led initiatives in managing pilgrimage logistics, especially in ecologically sensitive and legally protected areas like Sabarimala.
• Highlights the need for transparent governance in projects involving public funds, private donations, and police coordination.

Judicial and Legal

• Reinforces the principle that judicial orders must be adhered to by all branches of government, including the executive, to maintain the rule of law.
• Exposes the legal risks of executive actions that contravene court directives, including potential contempt proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
• Underscores the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing projects with potential for misuse or overreach, particularly in religious and cultural contexts.

Environmental and Social

• The project’s core objective—maintaining cleanliness—aligns with environmental conservation efforts in the Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot.
• Engages devotees in community service, fostering a sense of collective responsibility for the upkeep of Sabarimala’s sanctity and surroundings.
• However, allegations of unauthorized fund collection and foreign ties raise concerns about ethical fundraising and transparency in religious tourism.

Challenges

1. Contempt of Court and Legal Violation

• Restoration of the project risks direct violation of the Kerala High Court’s February 2025 order, which explicitly barred its use for Sabarimala activities.
• Executive orders permitting the project’s continuation may be deemed contemptuous, exposing the state government and officials to legal proceedings.
• Judicial sources have indicated that the government may need to challenge the High Court order legally if it disputes the inquiry report’s findings.

UPSC Link: Judicial Review and Contempt of Court (Constitutional Law)

2. Transparency and Ethical Fundraising

• Allegations of illegal fund collection and solicitation of donations from private entities undermine public trust in the project’s integrity.
• The involvement of serving and retired police officers in fundraising activities raises concerns about conflicts of interest and misuse of official positions.
• Lack of public disclosure of the inquiry report (M.R. Ajithkumar’s findings) limits accountability and transparency in the project’s operations.

UPSC Link: Financial Accountability and Public Trust (Governance)

3. Scope Creep and Police Bandobast Misuse

• The project’s expansion beyond its stated objective of cleanliness—into activities resembling police bandobast (security arrangements)—violates its original mandate.
• Using the project’s name for pilgrimage-related activities misleads devotees and undermines the Kerala Police’s official role in managing Sabarimala’s security.
• The inquiry report suggests potential overreach, including travels by coordinators to foreign countries, which requires funding and raises ethical questions.

UPSC Link: Police Reforms and Accountability (Administrative Law)

4. Environmental and Ecological Concerns

• Sabarimala’s fragile ecosystem in the Western Ghats is vulnerable to pollution and degradation due to mass pilgrimage activities.
• While the project aims to mitigate environmental harm, its implementation without strict adherence to ecological safeguards could exacerbate the problem.
• Unregulated fundraising and activities may divert focus from sustainable waste management practices in the region.

UPSC Link: Environmental Governance and Sustainable Tourism (Environment)

5. Religious and Cultural Sensitivities

• Sabarimala’s status as a site of religious significance for millions of devotees necessitates strict adherence to legal and cultural norms.
• Misuse of the project’s name for non-sanctioned activities risks offending religious sentiments and undermining public faith in institutional integrity.
• The Kerala High Court’s intervention reflects the judiciary’s role in balancing religious practices with legal and administrative oversight.

UPSC Link: Secularism and Religious Freedom (Constitutional Law)

Challenges — UPSC Perspective

Way Forward

• The Kerala government must immediately comply with the Kerala High Court’s February 2025 order by issuing a public advisory clarifying the project’s status and restrictions.
• Conduct a transparent and independent audit of the project’s finances, including all sources of funding, to address allegations of illegal fund collection and ensure compliance with legal norms.
• Reinstate the original scope of the Punyam Poonkavanam project to focus solely on cleanliness and environmental conservation, with strict monitoring by the Travancore Devaswom Board and Kerala Police.
• Initiate legal proceedings against officials or entities found to have violated the High Court order or engaged in unauthorized activities, including potential contempt charges if necessary.
• Establish a multi-stakeholder committee comprising representatives from the judiciary, police, environmental bodies, and religious organizations to oversee the project’s implementation and address grievances.
• Enhance transparency by publicly disclosing the inquiry report (M.R. Ajithkumar’s findings) and the government’s response to its recommendations to rebuild public trust.
• Strengthen environmental safeguards in Sabarimala by integrating the project’s activities with the National Green Tribunal’s directives and the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel’s recommendations.
• Conduct awareness campaigns among devotees to clarify the project’s legitimate activities and prevent misuse of its name for unauthorized purposes.

UPSC Value Addition

Prelims Practice Questions

Q1. Which of the following is a key directive issued by the Kerala High Court regarding the Punyam Poonkavanam project in Sabarimala?

1. The project is mandated to be part of the Kerala Police Bandobast Scheme.
2. The project must include mandatory foreign funding for its operations.
3. The project cannot use its name for activities connected with Sabarimala pilgrimage.
4. The project must be exclusively managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board.

Answer: The project cannot use its name for activities connected with Sabarimala pilgrimage. — The Kerala High Court, in February 2025, explicitly directed that the name of the Punyam Poonkavanam project cannot be used for any activity connected with Sabarimala, and it is not part of the Police Bandobast Scheme.

Q2. Under which legal provision can an official be prosecuted for filing a false report to the court, as indicated in the context of the Punyam Poonkavanam project?

1. Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code
2. Section 212 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
3. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code
4. Section 166A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Answer: Section 212 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — Judicial sources highlighted that filing a false report to the court under the Punyam Poonkavanam project could attract prosecution under Section 212 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which prescribes penalties for such offences.

Mains Practice Question

✍ Analyse the constitutional and legal implications of the Kerala government’s decision to restore the Punyam Poonkavanam project in Sabarimala, despite the Kerala High Court’s explicit directive. Discuss the principles of judicial review, separation of powers, and the rule of law in this context.

Approach: Examine the constitutional framework governing the relationship between the executive and the judiciary, particularly the doctrine of judicial review. Discuss how the Kerala High Court’s order binds the executive and the potential consequences of disregarding it. Evaluate the role of the Travancore Devaswom Board and Kerala Police in this context, and assess the legal and ethical implications of the restoration decision. Conclude by reflecting on the importance of upholding judicial orders to maintain the integrity of the legal system.

Source: The Hindu

Generated by AanyaAi for educational purpose.

• Author
• Recent Posts

Tushar

Latest posts by Tushar (see all)

• कक्षा 10 में तीसरी भाषा नीति: क्या स्कूल इसे लागू कर पाएंगे? - July 29, 2026
• Can India’s 3rd Language Policy in Schools Succeed? Examining Challenges & Solutions - July 29, 2026
• पीएम विद्यालक्ष्मी योजना: मेधावी छात्रों को बिना गारंटी शिक्षा ऋण, जानिए विशेषताएं - July 29, 2026