Ayodhya Temple Donation Theft: Supreme Court Refuses CBI Probe
Supreme Court declines CBI probe in Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft, directs trial to proceed.
advertisement
The Supreme Court of India has closed all petitions seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged theft of donations at the Ayodhya Ram Mandir. The decision followed the Uttar Pradesh government’s submission that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had completed its investigation and filed a chargesheet against eight accused individuals. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, directed the trial to proceed before the local judicial magistrate, granting petitioners the right to assist the court as permitted by law. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
According to Live Law, the SIT’s investigation revealed that the theft occurred during the counting of donations, with individuals responsible for counting allegedly misappropriating funds. The SIT traced the movement of funds, identifying investments in property and bank deposits linked to the accused. The Supreme Court’s order allows petitioners to assist the magistrate in the same manner as victims of crime, recognising the public interest involved in the case.
As reported by Deccan Herald, investigators reconstructed the money trail despite limited CCTV footage, relying on financial records to identify unauthorised bank deposits and property purchases. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the accused deposited stolen funds in their bank accounts and invested in real estate, with discrepancies noted between sale deed values and actual property worth. The court reiterated that no prejudice would be caused to any party, as it had not commented on the substance of the allegations.
As highlighted by Hindustan Times, the SIT identified 105 instances of unauthorised removal or concealment of cash during the donation counting process inside the temple premises. The investigation included examination of banking documents, witness statements, electronic records, and a forensic audit. The SIT also physically verified valuable articles and found no discrepancies in their reconciliation. The charge sheet, exceeding 60,000 pages, was filed before the anti-corruption court in Ayodhya in September 2026.
“Since there is an element of public interest involved, liberty is granted to the petitioner to assist the court of judicial magistrate as the law enables the victims of crime to also assist the court,” the Supreme Court stated in its order.
Further details indicate that the Supreme Court permitted the SIT, with the addition of a forensic auditor, to continue its investigation rather than transferring the case to the CBI. The SIT’s findings included suspicious deposits and unauthorised currency removal linked to eight accused individuals. The court’s directions emphasised the right of petitioners to participate in the trial process, reflecting the case’s public significance.
The SIT’s probe, as coverage revealed, found that embezzlement occurred specifically during the counting stage. Some accused invested the misappropriated funds in properties, while others deposited the amounts in banks. The Supreme Court’s order made clear that the trial would proceed in the local court, with no further monitoring by the apex court.
The investigation, according to analysis, covered the financial transactions, properties, vehicles, jewellery, and expenditures of the accused and their close relatives. The SIT examined 173 witnesses, including temple staff, bank officials, and security personnel, to assess whether assets were commensurate with known sources of income.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated, “The individuals who were counting have taken the money. We checked the bank account of each of the employees who were accused... So, we have that figure.”
The Supreme Court’s decision, as details emerged, follows the SIT’s comprehensive investigation and the filing of the chargesheet. The court’s directions ensure that the trial will proceed under judicial oversight, with petitioners allowed to assist, but without a CBI probe or further Supreme Court monitoring.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.