The ruling front and the Opposition sparred over whether the High Court was castigatory or laudatory about the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe in the Sabarimala gold theft case. Furthermore, the contentious question of whether the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) had put the SIT under duress to shield the government’s political appointees on the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) from legal peril also roiled the Assembly on Tuesday.
Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan said the High Court had flagged an “investigative laxity” in the SIT probe, which cast doubt in the public mind. He said later developments proved the High Court’s observation prescient. He said the SIT probe ended in a blind alley.
“The team could not even file a preliminary chargesheet, enabling the accused to obtain statutory bail and opening the door to tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses to sabotage the SIT case,” he said.
Mr. Satheesan said the SIT, for dubious reasons, failed to obtain the necessary examination report, including forensic analysis of the handwriting of former TDB president and Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] leader A. Padmakumar.
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan told the Assembly that the High Court Division Bench, which appointed the SIT and directly monitors the investigation, had lauded the team for its diligence. “The High Court Division Bench’s clean chit for the SIT is a slap on the Opposition’s face”, he said.
He said the Opposition had cherry-picked an observation made by a Single Bench while hearing the bail plea to make a false case against the government. “The observation prima facie seems more against the High Court Division Bench steering the investigation and not the government. I am not dwelling further on the subject now,” he said.
Mr. Satheesan responded that Mr. Vijayan was not “studied” in matters of legal jurisprudence.
Published – February 03, 2026 07:06 pm IST
