The Supreme Court on Monday cautioned against politicising the alleged embezzlement of funds collected for the construction of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir, saying the court’s role was limited to ensuring a proper investigation into the alleged crime. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a batch of public interest litigations seeking an independent probe, including by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), into allegations of dishonest misappropriation and diversion of donations collected for the construction of the temple.
“Just a word of caution. Don’t politicise the issue. Courts are not a place for politics. It’s a simple case of commission of crime. We are just to ensure proper investigation,” Chief Justice Kant said during the hearing. The Bench also examined the status of the investigation and sought clarity on the role of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that had initially examined the allegations.
Supreme Court asks who is investigating the case
In compliance with the Court’s earlier directions, a status report on the probe was placed before the Bench. “Who is investigating now?” Chief Justice Kant asked.
Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said an SIT had initially been constituted to examine the allegations and determine whether a cognisable offence had been committed.
“Special Investigation Team was constituted to find out the truthfulness. Now it is being probed by the police. SIT just found that there is a cognizable offence,” Mehta said.
The Court then asked the State to consider whether the SIT could itself be entrusted with conducting the investigation.
“We will take up the matter after 3-4 days and we will look at the aspect of investigation. The SIT had senior members. Please have instructions if a SIT can be formed for investigation,” the Chief Justice said.
“Yes. We will form and place it on record,” the Solicitor General replied.
The matter will be heard again on July 27, when the Court is expected to consider further directions on the investigation.
Petitioners seek preservation of donation records
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the petitions were aimed at ensuring accountability in the handling of donations. “Our PIL is stating that when the temple was built, they sought donation from everyone. Now we are seeking that those receipts are preserved and uploaded,” Kamat said.
The Bench indicated that the issue could be examined.
Other lawyers appearing in the matter also sought directions for the preservation of digital and physical records connected with the collection and utilisation of donations. They also urged the Court to direct the authorities to upload the FIR registered in the case to improve transparency.
The Solicitor General assured the Court that the relevant records had been preserved.
Allegations of financial irregularities
One of the petitions before the Supreme Court has been filed by advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav. The petitioners have alleged that claims of dishonest misappropriation, diversion and embezzlement of public donations meant for the construction of the Ram Temple warrant registration of a criminal case and a time-bound investigation by an independent agency.
They have questioned the adequacy of the existing SIT, arguing that it lacks the forensic and investigative infrastructure required for a complex financial investigation.
The petitioners have also alleged that the SIT began its inquiry without registration of a First Information Report (FIR), potentially raising questions over the evidentiary value of its findings.
The plea seeks the preservation of all relevant records, including donation registers and receipts, account books and ledgers, bank records and transaction details, UPI logs, CCTV footage, emails and electronic communications and software databases and server data.
The petitioners have also sought directions to ensure that such records are not destroyed, altered or tampered with during the investigation.
Petitioners seek CBI probe
The plea has drawn a parallel with the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams adulterated ghee case. The petition refers to the Court’s October 2024 order in Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in which an existing State SIT was replaced with an independent, multidisciplinary SIT headed by the CBI.
On that basis, the petitioners have urged the Supreme Court to direct an independent probe into the alleged financial irregularities surrounding donations collected for the Ram Mandir.
RJD MP seeks court-monitored investigation
A separate petition has been filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Member of Parliament Sudhakar Singh, seeking the transfer of the ongoing investigation to the CBI under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Singh has also sought the creation of a temporary court-monitored oversight committee comprising retired judicial officers, financial experts and individuals of “impeccable integrity”.
The proposed committee, according to the plea, would oversee the Trust’s financial and administrative affairs during the pendency of the investigation.
The petition also seeks regular publication of audited financial statements, donation details and utilisation of funds on the official website of the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust, while protecting the personal information of individual donors.
Court had earlier sought SIT report
At the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had sought a status report from the SIT on the investigation and a response from the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust.
The latest hearing focused primarily on the status of the probe and the agency that should conduct the investigation going forward.
While the petitioners have pressed for a CBI or an independent multidisciplinary investigation, the Uttar Pradesh government has indicated that the SIT could potentially be tasked with conducting the probe.
The Supreme Court is now expected to consider the issue on July 27 and may issue directions on the scope and structure of the investigation.
The Bench’s remarks also made clear that the proceedings would focus on the alleged criminal and financial aspects of the case, rather than its political dimensions.
