As the controversy rages over the alleged adulteration of ghee in Tirupati temple laddus, a plea regarding the alleged use of “tainted and impure halal jaggery” in the preparation of “naivedyam” (offering to the deity) at the Sabarimala temple is awaiting judgment before Kerala. HC three years ago.
Petitioner SJR Kumar, an engineer-turned-social worker and general director of the Sabarimala Karma Samithi, moved the HC in November 2021 after media reports about “illegal activities” alleged by the temple authorities “in procuring halal-certified jaggery for preparing prasadam including and Aravana.and Unniyappam in the Sabarimala temple for violating the customs and traditions of the Hindu society”.
The jaggery has been provided by a Maharashtra-based company for 2019-2020. Aravana, a traditional sweet made of red rice, jaggery and ghee, and Unniyappam made of rice, jaggery and other ingredients and fried are the main offerings to the deity.
The petition filed by advocate V Sajith Kumar said: “Firstly, the use of adulterated materials can pose health risks to innocent devotees. Secondly, the use of halal-certified jaggery prepared according to the religious process of another religion in the temple and offering the same to the deity would amount to a gross violation of the religious customs and practices followed in the temple from time immemorial…” and “is highly illegal and violates the religious rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.”
On 17 November 2021, the HC bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar asked the Special Commissioner of Sabarimala to answer the charges.
The Special Commissioner said that according to the reports of the appointed officer, the special team on food safety, the samples of the stock of jaggery collected were tested in April 2021 and found to be “satisfactory”. “In September 2021, it was tested again and found to be infested and unsafe and the sample had a foul smell.”
The report stated that the police officer said that unsafe jaggery “is not used to prepare Aravana and Appam”.
The report also said that the directorate of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) had taken steps to conduct an “improper” auction by publishing a tender notice and Southern Agro Tech Pvt Ltd emerged as the successful bidder. Regarding the use of halal-certified jaggery, the report said “it is true that on the cover of the said jaggery it is written that it is halal”, but added that the designated officer, food safety, “sent that declaration. The halal certificate on the cover is not against the provisions of FSSA.”
The Special Commissioner said the Vigilance Officer said the manufacturer said “for the purpose of allowing export to other Middle Eastern countries a halal declaration is required.” Regarding food safety, the Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety, Pathanamthitta district, said there are two quality testing labs, and goods are tested at both locations before they are released to prepare prasadam. The TDB counter’s affidavit said only “a few packets” were labeled.
Denying the allegations of adulterated products, the Maharashtra company filed before the court that “on some packages of jaggery given to the company during the contract period the label HALAL JUH/HRC/437/2018 was printed. It happened because the company exports jaggery to Arab countries and halal certificate is required. … The halal certificate is nothing but a guarantee of a high level of hygiene, cleanliness”.
Terming the allegations made by the petitioner as “malicious”, TDB countered that “the intention of the petitioner was to stop the sale of Aravana and Appam in Sabarimala and cause huge financial loss to the Board. There is a calculated attempt to attack the reputation of Sabarimala and…
Kumar said this “shows that they are only concerned about commercial interest and not serious about the sanctity and purity of Nivedya”.
Kumar said the temple authorities “have not received the lab test reports of the jaggery supplied” by the Maharashtra company and have produced lab reports only for “the latest batch of Aravana produced using jaggery obtained from a new supplier. He also questioned the temple authorities for reselling “unsafe” jaggery in the auction.
The TDB had stated in its affidavit that “the auction was made clearly stating that the stock is not suitable for Vazhipadu renovation” and “the prohibition of sale is for human consumption or use.”
Kumar said Southern Agro in an affidavit stated that part of the jaggery in the auction was sold to two companies in TN, which is against the decision of TDB that it was bought for use as raw material. Hearing on November 24, 2023, the HC asked the petitioner about his understanding of “halal”. The case was even heard several times.