North India Statesman
The Supreme Court received a comprehensive accounting from the Uttar Pradesh government detailing how funds donated by devotees at the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya were systematically stolen and where the misappropriated money went. Appearing for the state administration and the Special Investigation Team, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that the siphoned offerings were redirected into real estate investments and personal bank deposits. With the SIT concluding its investigation and filing a chargesheet against eight accused persons, the top court disposed of petitions seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe while permitting writ petitioners to assist the local trial court in the proceedings.
The proceedings addressed public interest petitions prompted by allegations that cash offerings dropped into temple donation boxes had been siphoned off by personnel assigned to internal operations. The forensic audit and police inquiry confirmed that the theft did not involve temple idols, gold artifacts, or sanctum sanctorum offerings, but occurred at the intermediate cash-handling stage.
Modus Operandi: How the Theft Occurred Inside the Counting Room
The SIT investigation uncovered 105 distinct instances of unauthorized currency concealment and removal inside the Pilgrim Facilitation Centre building located on the temple premises. The theft took place while staff and contractual counting personnel processed high volumes of physical cash offerings:
-
Concealment During Manual Tallying: While cash was sorted and counted under surveillance, rogue handlers pocketed currency notes, concealing them in pockets and clothing folds before stepping outside the monitoring room.
-
CCTV Footage and Forensic Matching: High-resolution security camera feeds documented repeated suspicious movements by specific counting personnel. A court-directed forensic audit team correlated recorded camera timestamps with discrepancies in daily cash collection sheets, pinpointing unauthorized cash extractions.
-
Witness Testimony: The SIT examined 173 witnesses—including temple trust officials, bank managers, security supervisors, closed-circuit camera technicians, chartered accountants, and counting staff—to trace the paper trail and reconstruct the timeline of each theft.
Where the Money Went: Real Estate, Vehicles, and Bank Deposits
In response to queries regarding the recovery and trail of the misappropriated funds, the state government presented the findings of the financial forensic investigation. The inquiry tracked the financial records, movable and immovable acquisitions, and banking footprints of all eight accused individuals and their close relatives:
-
Real Estate Acquisitions: Portions of the stolen cash were funneled into acquiring plots, agricultural land parcels, and residential property developments registered under the names of the accused or their family members.
-
Bank Fixed Deposits and Liquid Accounts: Significant shares of the cash were deposited into various commercial bank accounts and converted into term deposits and fixed accounts.
-
Vehicles and Bullion: The SIT uncovered cash purchases of four-wheelers, commercial vehicles, and gold jewelry disproportionate to the declared monthly earnings of the low-level staff.
Supreme Court Ruling: Trial Court to Proceed as Chargesheet Filed
Taking on record that the SIT completed its inquiry and filed a formal chargesheet before the competent judicial magistrate in Ayodhya under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Supreme Court ruled that a separate federal agency probe was unnecessary.
The bench clarified that it was expressing no opinion on the factual merits of the criminal charges. In an order reinforcing transparency, the court permitted the public-spirited petitioners—including social organizations and political representatives—to participate and assist the local magistrate during the trial in the same manner as victims in criminal proceedings. The local magistrate will now hear charges, assess property attachment petitions for the recovered assets, and conduct the trial in accordance with statutory procedures.
