In a significant development, the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft Supreme Court case reached a crucial stage as the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Special Investigation Team (SIT) to submit its investigation progress in a sealed cover. A three-judge bench also issued notices to the Union Government, the Uttar Pradesh Government, and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust while expanding the scope of the inquiry.
Judicial Intervention and Issuance of Notices
The Supreme Court stepped into the alleged embezzlement of public donations collected for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, issued notices to the Union Government, the Uttar Pradesh Government, and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. The bench heard several public interest litigations (PILs) seeking an independent central investigation into the alleged financial irregularities.
Supreme Court Seeks SIT Progress Report
The bench directed the Uttar Pradesh Special Investigation Team (SIT) to file a detailed status report on its investigation. The report must explain the progress made and identify the team’s members and their professional expertise. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the State, informed the Court that the SIT would submit the report in a sealed cover.
Petitioners Seek CBI Probe and CAG Audit
Several petitions seek a transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and a financial audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). Narendra Kumar Goswami filed one such petition. Another petition by Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav argues that the Trust and public authorities must safeguard donations made by millions of devotees. The Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft Supreme Court proceedings also focus on ensuring transparency and accountability in handling public contributions.
Concerns Over State Investigation
The petitioners argued that the state SIT lacks the forensic expertise needed to investigate complex financial transactions. They also claimed that investigators began the inquiry without promptly registering an FIR. According to them, this delay could weaken the evidence during future criminal proceedings. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam matter, where the Court replaced a local probe with a CBI-led multidisciplinary investigation.
Demand for Oversight and Evidence Protection
RJD MP Sudhakar Singh filed another petition seeking a court-monitored investigation and a complete forensic audit of the Trust’s finances. He urged the Court to preserve digital evidence, including UPI records, bank statements, transaction logs, CCTV footage, and DVR data. The petition also proposed an interim oversight committee comprising retired judges and financial experts to supervise the Trust’s financial administration until the investigation concludes.
Calls for Greater Financial Transparency
The petitioners asked the Court to direct the Trust to publish audited financial statements, donation records, and expenditure details on its official website. They also requested disclosure of all assets received since the Trust’s formation, including cash donations, electronic transfers, gold, silver, and other valuable offerings. In addition, they sought restrictions on major financial decisions and commercial contracts without prior approval from the proposed oversight committee.
FIR Registered; Eight Remain in Judicial Custody
The alleged disappearance of infrastructure funds has raised concerns among donors across the country. Authorities have already registered an FIR and arrested eight individuals. All eight remain in judicial custody. Earlier, the Allahabad High Court declined to hear similar petitions because the Supreme Court had already taken up the matter.
Supreme Court Rejects Delay Request
During the hearing, the bench refused the petitioners’ request to access the SIT’s status report while the investigation continues. Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that the Court cannot disclose such material during an ongoing probe. The bench also rejected the Solicitor General’s request to defer issuing notices to the temple trust. Petitioners stressed the urgent need to preserve CCTV footage and DVR records before they are overwritten. The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing next Monday.
