Don't Politicise Ayodhya Ram Temple Donation Theft, Cautions Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft issue should not be politicized.

Hearing petitions seeking CBI investigation and audit of the temple Trust finances, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, “We are only putting a word of caution. Don't play any politics. The Courts are not meant for this. Don't politicize the issue. It is a simple prima facie case of commission of an offense", the CJI said.

Indicating that the Court would pass certain directions on Monday, the CJI's bench adjourned the matter so as to go through a status report filed by the Uttar Pradesh government.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a bunch of petitions seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the allegations of embezzlement of donations received for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.

Earlier, the Court had issued notice on the petitions and directed the SIT constituted by the UP government file a status report on the developments thus far.

Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that investigation into the allegations is ongoing and it is being conducted by the State police.

The SG further submitted that in compliance of the Court's order, a status report had been filed, wherein it was mentioned that 8 persons have been arrested thus far. "State police is investigating...SIT was constituted to examine truthfulness...it immediately said that, yes there is a cognizable offense...I can't divulge much in the midst of investigation", he said.

On a specific Court query, the SG further said that the SIT only found out prima facie whether a cognizable offense was made out or not. Based on that SIT's report, an FIR was registered. However, the ongoing investigation was not being conducted by an SIT.

Hearing the SG, CJI Kant said that the bench would like to go through the report submitted. Meanwhile, the SG may speak to the Director General of Police on reconstitution of the SIT - as to whether the senior IPS officer, who was part of the SIT tasked with finding out if there was cognizable offense made out, can head an SIT for investigation. The CJI noted that the said officer would have prima facie knowledge of the case and emphasized that the investigation must be fair and transparent and shall be taken to a logical conclusion.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, for some petitioners, flagged a larger issue regarding alleged "vanishing" of gold/silver articles and non-accounting of donations received by the temple Trust. He contended that the receipts given at the time of receiving funds (when the temple was being constructed) may be disclosed on a website, so the devotees can know whether their donations reached the temple.

CJI Kant did not entertain the idea of disclosure on a website, but said that some sort of record must be maintained. Insofar as Kamat's prayer that the state disclose the donations (in form of ornaments, etc.), the CJI underlined that there can be false claims about donations having been made and therefore the same may not be practical.

"Wherever receipt has been issued, that record should be well maintained, should be accounted for" the CJI reiterated.

So far as a contention raised during the hearing that digital evidence, such as CCTV footage, should be preserved, SG Mehta informed that the same were being preserved. When a counsel sought intervention in the matter, the CJI questioned the necessity of multiple parties approaching the Court.

Another counsel argued that the FIR registered by State police should be uploaded on a designated portal, and the status report shared with the petitioners. However, the bench did not pass any order to that effect today.

Background

One of the petitions was filed by Narendra Kumar Goswami, petitioner-in-person, seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the matter. He also seeks an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of the finances of the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust, the trust which is managing the Ayodhya Ram temple.

The second petition was filed by Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, also petitioners-in-person, seeking similar direction for CBI probe. The petition seeks directions to the Union Government, the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust to take appropriate measures to safeguard the interests of devotees and donors.

It states that irrespective of whether the allegations of missing funds and other irregularities are ultimately substantiated, the reports have caused widespread concern among those who contributed to or supported the Ram Mandir movement.

The third petition was filed by RJD MP Sudhakar Singh who seeks a forensic audit of the entire finances of the temple trust in the light of the scam, in addition to CBI probe under the monitoring of the Supreme Court. The PIL requests directions to preserve all financial records, including physical documents, digital ledgers, UPI transaction logs and bank statements, to prevent any alleged tampering with evidence.

The petitioner has further sought an order restraining the Trust from undertaking major investments, entering into substantial contracts or taking significant financial decisions without the prior approval of the proposed Oversight Committee. The plea also seeks a comprehensive forensic audit of all donations, transactions and assets of the Trust by an independent agency.

It further requests that the Trust be directed to publish audited financial statements and donation records on its official website in the interest of public transparency.

The plea requests that, pending completion of the investigation, no major financial or administrative decision involving utilisation of Trust funds, award of substantial contracts, creation of third-party rights, alienation of Trust assets, investments or other significant financial commitments be undertaken except with the approval of the proposed Court-monitored Oversight Committee.

Additionally, the petition seeks a comprehensive forensic audit of the Trust's accounts, donations, offerings, bank transactions and financial records by an independent agency of unquestionable credibility, with the audit report to be placed before the Supreme Court.

The PIL also asks the Court to direct the Trust to maintain complete transparency by publishing audited financial statements, details of donations received, utilisation of funds and other financial information on its official website, while protecting confidential or sensitive donor information where necessary.

Further, the petitioner has sought a direction requiring the Trust to place before the Court a complete statement of all donations and contributions received since its constitution, including cash donations, bank transfers, digital payments, foreign contributions, donations in kind, gold, silver and other valuables, along with details regarding their accounting, custody and utilisation.

A fourth petition has been filed by the Hindu Dharma Parishad, seeking a Supreme Court-monitored investigation into the allegations pertaining to the Ram Mandir donations.

Petitions seeking high-level probes were also filed before the Allahabad High Court, but it refused to entertain them to avoid parallel proceedings before itself and the Supreme Court. The Uttar Pradesh police has registered an FIR following an inquiry by a Special Investigation Team constituted by the State Government.

Recently, the Nirmohi Akhara moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to restructure the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust as a public trust, contending that as presently constituted, it is inconsistent with the spirit of the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment and lacks adequate accountability.

Cases : Narendra Kumar Goswami v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 790/2026; Ajay Kumar Rai and another v. Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust | WP(Crl) 241/2026; Sudhakar Singh v. Union of India and others | WP (crl) 256/2026; Hindu Dharma Parishad v. The Union Of India And Ors. | WP(C) No. 827/2026