'Arrest, revenge for opposing women's Sabarimala entry': Tantri in bail plea, court says cops acted with nil evidence

The Special Investigation Team probing the Sabarimala gold scam had exercised enough guile to arrest Tantri Kandararu Rajeevaru in January 2026. He was questioned twice on November 10, 2025 and January 1, 2026. The questions were not penetrative, just formal questions about the temple affairs.  The team gave an impression that tantri had no role in the scam. 

His name had not figured in any of the reports submitted in the High Court. He was not named as an accused. Then on January 9, he was called to the Crime Branch office saying that some of his statements required clarification and a signature was missing. He was made an accused in the case and arrested. Seven days later, Rajeevaru found himself an accused in two cases; misappropriation of gold from the door frames and the idols. 

It seemed like the SIT had caught a big fish with stealthy precision until on Wednesday when all the charges it had built against Rajeevaru fell flat in the Vigilance court. The team has earlier drawn flak from the High Court over delay in the recovery of stolen gold. 

The court made its observations on all the contentions raised by tantri's counsels save for a serious accusation. In his bail plea, Rajeevaru said that he had ruffled the feathers of many persons when he had taken a strong stand against entry of women in Sabarimala shrine in 2018. He claimed that the attempts made by a few senior police officers at the instance of the ruling front for the entry of women to Sabarimala was virtually prevented by him. 

He had faced public attacks from the influential figures of the ruling front for taking this stand. According to Rajeevaru, he was arrested in retaliation and the vindictive move was made to tarnish his reputation and to create a narrative that not only members of the ruling party but the highest priest is also involved in the case. 

The court didn't disregard any of these accusations, but was silent over the statements. The SIT tried tightening the grip around tantri by filing two reports. The court didn't entertain both. The prosecution case rested solely on the contention that Sabarimala tantri, being the supreme authority of religious ceremonies, didn't do anything to stop transportation of gold from the temple, eventually leading to the fraud. 

While the SIT claimed that tantri silently allowed the alleged theft, it turned out that he was the only one who had recorded copper coverings as formerly plated with gold while the other accused had allegedly misrepresented them as mere copper-clad artefacts. The Vigilance court noted that the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer had highlighted this crucial aspect in his report which said that the fact that the artefacts were gold-cladded was suppressed in the proceedings of the board. 

One of the charges against tantri was that he did not obtain the consent of the Lord for the removal of the sacred door frames in May 2019. The court said that as per the manual, tantri needs to give an opinion only when it is deemed necessary by the board. He was not directed to take the permission of the Lord and it ruled out the charge of criminal conspiracy. 

The SIT had bent over backwards to establish a nexus between the first accused Unnikrishnan Potty and tantri. The SIT had cited that they had worked together at Sree Ramapuram Ayyappa temple. The officials got the timeline wrong. While Rajeevaru was the tantri in this temple from 2005 to 2015, Potty had been a priest there between 1997 and 2003. 

The court also noted that the SIT could not reply to the finding that Potty's father-in-law was a priest at Sabarimala once and brother of his father-in-law was a guard at Sabarimala from 1990 to 2010. The defence represented by counsels B Raman Pillai, Sujesh Menon and C D Anil raised this contention to project the nexus of Potty with people other than tantri. The court concluded that there was absolutely nothing to indicate that tantri was related with Potty in any of the unholy activities in the temple.

An additional report was also filed by the SIT saying that tantri had several financial transactions of suspicious nature. The court didn't find it convincing either. It said that tantri would be acquiring huge amounts of money from various sources since he is entitled to dakshina from the devotees of the most famous temple in Kerala. The Judge said that it was not a ground to sanction the continued detention.