Ayodhya Ram Mandir Donation Theft | Matter Now Before SC: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Entertain Two More PILs Seeking Probe
Sparsh Upadhyay
10 July 2026 12:22 PM IST
The Supreme Court is set tohear on Monday (July 13) a batch of petitions seeking an independent investigation into the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation theft allegations.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has refused to entertain two more Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking high-level probes, including a Judicial Commission and a Special Investigation Team (SIT), into allegations of theft of donations for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla disposed of the petitions on July 7, noting that the subject matter is already pending before the Supreme Court in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
"We have already noticed that same subject matter is pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court…therefore, there is no reason as to why we should start parallel proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason already mentioned in our earlier orders. We thus see no reason to entertain this writ petition", the Court observed.
The bench relied heavily upon its own order passed a day prior (on July 6), wherein it had refused to entertain a similar PIL petition seeking a CBI probe into the allegations.
On July 7, the High Court heard these two new, separate PILs concerning the alleged misuse of donations, gifts, and offerings made by pilgrims and devotees.
The first petition filed by the Gandhivadi Adhivakta Vichar Manch sought the constitution of an independent SIT, preferably chaired by a retired High Court Judge, to properly investigate the alleged "financial embezzlement" within the Trust.
The second petition filed by Advocate Moti Lal Yadav (appearing in person) sought the appointment of a “high-level Judicial Commission headed by retired Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court/Hon'ble High Court for investigation of irregularities or misappropriation of money”.
Yadav additionally prayed that the District Judge of Ayodhya be appointed as an administrator/receiver and that the Trust's powers and accounts be frozen until an SIT inquiry is completed.
While declining to entertain both pleas, the High Court relied upon its own order passed a day prior (on July 6).
During that previous hearing, the State's Additional Advocate General informed the High Court that a writ petition had already been filed before the Supreme Court.
Taking into account the said submission and noting that the reliefs prayed for in the current PILs were substantially similar to those pending before the Apex Court, the bench disposed of the petitions.
Case title (PIL plea 1) - Gandhivadi Adhivakta Vichar Manch v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Case title (PIL plea 2) - Moti Lal Yadav v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
