As a controversy rages over alleged adulteration of ghee in Tirupati temple laddus, a petition over the alleged use of “unholy and impure halal jaggery” in preparing the “naivedyam” (offering to the deity) at the Sabarimala temple is pending adjudication before the Kerala HC over the last three years. Petitioner S J R Kumar, an engineer-turned-social worker and general convenor of Sabarimala Karma Samithi, moved the HC in November 2021 after media reports about alleged “illegal actions” by temple administration “in procuring halal-certified jaggery for preparation of prasadam including Aravana and Unniyappam at Sabarimala Temple in violation of rituals and customs prevailing in the Hindu community”. The jaggery was supplied by a Maharashtra-based firm for 2019-20. Aravana, a traditional sweet made from red rice, jaggery and ghee, and Unniyappam made from rice, jaggery and other ingredients and fried are the main offerings to the deity. The plea filed through advocate V Sajith Kumar said: “Firstly, use of spoiled materials would create health hazards to innocent devotees. Secondly, use of halal-certified jaggery which is prepared as per the religious practices of another religion in the temple and offering the same to the deity would amount to serious violation of religious customs and rituals followed at the temple from time immemorial…” and “are highly illegal and violative of religious rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.” On November 17, 2021, an HC bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and P G Ajithkumar asked the Sabarimala Special Commissioner to respond to the charges. The Special Commissioner submitted that according to reports of the designated officer, food safety special squad, samples of the accumulated jaggery stock were tested in April 2021 and found to be “satisfactory”. “In September 2021, it was again tested and found to be infested with insects and unsafe and the sample had a foul odour.” The report pointed out that the officer had said that the unsafe jaggery “is not used for preparation of Aravana and Appam”. The report also said that the shrine administrator Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) has taken steps to auction the “unfit” jaggery by publishing tender notification and Southern Agro Tech Pvt Ltd had emerged as the successful bidder. On the alleged use of halal-certified jaggery, the report said “it is true that on the cover of the said jaggery there is a writing that it is halal”, but added that the designated officer, food safety, had “submitted that declaration of halal certificate in the cover is not against the provisions of FSSA.” The Special Commissioner said that the Chief Vigilance Officer had said the manufacturer had stated that for “purpose of enabling export to some Middle East countries halal declaration is required.” Regarding food safety, Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety, Pathanamthitta district, said there are two quality checking labs, and consignments are tested at both places before being released for preparing prasadam. The TDB counter affidavit said only “a few packets” had the label. Denying the allegation of impure products, the Maharashtra firm submitted before the court that “on certain packets of jaggery supplied by the company during the contract period label HALAL JUH/HRC/437/2018 is printed. It happened because the company is exporting jaggery to Arab countries and halal certification is necessary. The halal certification is nothing but an assurance of high level of hygiene, cleanliness”. Calling the allegations made by the petitioner “malicious”, the TDB contended that the petitioner’s “intention was to stall the Aravana and Appam sale in Sabarimala and cause huge financial losses to the Board. There is a calculated attempt to attack the reputation of Sabarimala and to. destroy the communal harmony through various posts.” Kumar said this “indicates they are concerned only about the commercial interest and not serious about the sanctity and purity of Nivedya”. Kumar said the temple administration “have not made available the lab test reports of the jaggery supplied by” the Maharashtra firm and produced only lab reports of “recent batch of Aravana produced using jaggery procured from” the new supplier. He also questioned the temple authorities for reselling the “unsafe” jaggery through auction. TDB had said in its affidavit the “auction was made clearly mentioning that the stock is not suitable for preparation of Vazhipadu” and “the prohibition for sale is only for the articles for human consumption or use.” Kumar said that Southern Agro in its affidavit said that a portion of auctioned jaggery was sold to two companies in TN, which is contradictory to TDB’s stand that it was bought for being used as raw material. Hearing it on November 24, 2023, the HC asked the petitioner on his understanding of “halal”. The matter came up for hearing a few more times.
