The Supreme Court cautioned against politicising the alleged Ayodhya Ram Mandir fund embezzlement case, saying it is a routine criminal matter requiring a fair investigation, and emphasised that courts are not a forum for political battles.
The Supreme Court sounded a note of caution against attempts to give a political colour to the case concerning the alleged embezzlement of funds collected for the construction of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir, observing that the matter was, at its core, an ordinary criminal offence that required nothing more than a proper investigation.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a batch of public interest litigations seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged misappropriation of donations meant for the temple.
The court remarked,
‘Courts are not a place for politics’
Highlighting that its role was confined to ensuring a fair inquiry rather than adjudicating a political controversy, the CJI observed,
“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.”
In compliance with the Court’s earlier direction, a status report on the progress of the investigation was placed before the Bench during the hearing.
When the CJI enquired as to which agency was presently seized of the probe, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, explained that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had been set up to ascertain whether the allegations held substance, and that the matter was now being investigated by the police, the SIT having found that a cognizable offence was disclosed.
The Bench proceeded to adjourn the matter after calling upon the State to clarify whether the SIT could itself be entrusted with carrying out the investigation.
Noting that the team already comprised senior members, the CJI remarked,
“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 Solicitor General assured the Court that the State would constitute such a team and place the details on record.
Appearing for one of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat submitted that the litigation was aimed at securing accountability, particularly in relation to the donations solicited from the public during the construction of the temple.
He urged that the receipts be preserved and made publicly accessible, a request the Bench indicated it would examine. Other counsel pressed for directions to safeguard digital records and to upload the first information report registered in the case, in the interest of transparency.
The Solicitor General assured the Court that all records had been preserved.
The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on July 27, with the CJI indicating that the Court would pass appropriate directions on that date.
One of the petitions, filed by advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, contends that the allegations of dishonest misappropriation, diversion and embezzlement of public donations meant for the temple’s construction warrant the registration of a case and an independent, time-bound investigation.
The petitioners argue that the existing SIT lacks the forensic and investigative wherewithal demanded by a complex financial inquiry, and that it had begun its work without first registering an FIR, leaving the evidentiary worth of its findings open to challenge.
Drawing an analogy with the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam adulterated ghee controversy, the petition invokes the Supreme Court’s October 2024 order in Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in which a State-constituted SIT was replaced by an independent, multidisciplinary team headed by the CBI.
The petitioners have further sought interim directions to the Trust and the State to preserve all physical, electronic and financial records, including donation registers, ledgers, CCTV footage, bank records and software databases.
A separate petition has been moved by Rashtriya Janata Dal Member of Parliament Sudhakar Singh, seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI under the Supreme Court’s supervision. Singh has argued for the constitution of a temporary, court-monitored oversight committee comprising retired judicial officers, financial experts and persons of unimpeachable integrity to superintend the Trust’s secular financial and administrative affairs during the pendency of the probe.
He has additionally sought directions requiring the Trust to preserve financial records such as account books, bank statements, UPI logs, CCTV footage, emails and servers, and to periodically publish audited financial statements, donation details and fund-utilisation particulars on its official website, while protecting donors’ personal information.
The controversy stems from allegations that donations collected for the construction and upkeep of the Ram Temple were siphoned off, prompting the registration of FIRs and the constitution of an SIT by the State Government to examine the claims.
Three writ petitions were brought before the Supreme Court seeking an independent investigation, including a plea filed by petitioner-in-person Narendra Kumar Goswami, who has sought a CBI probe as well as an audit of the Trust’s finances by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). Companion petitions were moved by Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, and separately by Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Sudhakar Singh.
Earlier, On July 13, the Bench had issued notice to the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust on the pleas. On the same date, the Court directed the State’s SIT to file a status report, in a sealed cover, setting out the progress of its investigation as well as the composition of the team. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the State, had informed the Court that the report would be submitted in a sealed cover.