Sabarimala gold row: LDF in Kerala questions Sonia Gandhi link to put Congress on the defensive

The ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) in Kerala has sought to put the Opposition on the defensive in the raging Sabarimala gold theft controversy by stating that the Congress was “still at a loss to coherently explain” the presence of the two main suspects in the case at the heavily guarded and sparingly accessible residence of party leader Sonia Gandhi in New Delhi. 

Law Minister P. Rajeeve told a press conference on Tuesday (February 3, 2026) that “the public was still in the dark” about how the accused, including the “main thief and the receiver of the loot”, got access to Ms Gandhi, with two Congress MPs in tow. He said the Congress’ “disruptive tactic” in the Kerala Assembly over the Sabarimala gold theft row was “just a fig leaf to cover the party leadership’s complicity in the case and dodge meaningful debate.”

Mr Rajeeve alleged that the Congress-controlled Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) under the Oommen Chandy government had opened the door for the accused to loot Sabarimala gold. He said the Congress allowed the accused in the case to steal the gold-plated horse idol (vaji vahanam) atop the temple’s flag mast. The High Court-appointed special investigation team (SIT) recovered the idol from the residence of one of the accused and produced it in court as evidence,” he said. 

Mr Rajeeve said the High Court observation that certain quarters sought to put the SIT under “unwarranted pressure” by spreading canards and casting aspersions on the team’s integrity was “an indirect indictment of the Opposition and its megaphones in the right-wing media.”

‘Satheesan crossed constitutional line’

Mr Rajeeve said Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan had “crossed a constitutional line” by stating that the government had injected “loyal officers” into the SIT constituted suo motu by the High Court. “Mr Satheesan threatened to name the officers, drawing oblique criticism from the High Court,” he said.

He said the High Court underscored the “competence, trustworthiness and industriousness of the newly inducted officers and also the SIT as a whole.”

Mr Rajeeve countered Mr Satheesan’s accusation that the SIT had delayed submitting the chargesheet in the case to enable the main accused, including CPI(M)’s political appointees to the TDB, to get natural bail. 

“The High Court observed that emerging scientific and forensic evidence had expanded the investigation’s scope, and that the SIT was entitled to more time. The court is aware that shoddy and hasty prosecution will enable the suspects to go scot-free,” he said.