The Supreme Court allowed petitioners and bona fide citizens to send suggestions to the SIT probing alleged Ram Mandir donation theft, via the Solicitor General, keeping the report in sealed cover.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday permitted the petitioners and other bona fide public-spirited persons to assist the ongoing Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the alleged embezzlement of funds donated for the construction of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir, by routing their suggestions through the office of the Solicitor General for the SIT’s consideration [in re: Ram Mandir donation theft probe].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order on a batch of petitions that seek an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), under the Court’s supervision, into the alleged theft of donations collected for the temple’s construction.
Public suggestions, routed through the SG
Framing a mechanism by which litigants and members of the public could feed into the investigation without being handed access to its material, the Court held:
“We also permit the petitioners or any other bona fide public-spirited person to give their suggestions to the office of the learned Solicitor General with respect to the aspects that may be required to be thoroughly investigated by the SIT.”
The Court directed that all such suggestions be forwarded to the SIT, adding that it had “no reason to doubt that the same shall be objectively considered.”
The SIT answers to the Court
The Bench was at pains to emphasise that the SIT remains accountable to the Court and that its findings would come to the judges first. It observed that the team — which includes a forensic auditor — would submit its status report to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover, and that the Court would decide whether to release it to the parties:
“It will have to report to us. The SIT, which includes a forensic auditor, will submit its status report to the Supreme Court in sealed cover. But its report will be first perused by us and seen if we have to release it to all parties.”
The observation is significant in light of the relief actually sought. While the petitioners have pressed for a CBI probe, the Court has so far permitted an SIT of police officers, supplemented by a forensic auditor, to continue the investigation under its monitoring, rather than transferring the matter to the central agency.
READ MORE: Rahul Gandhi Assets Case: Supreme Court Halts Allahabad HC Proceedings, Stops CBI Report
The tussle over access to the investigation
A point of contention arose over how much of the investigation could be shared with the petitioners. Counsel for a petitioner sought a copy of the investigation material so as to assist the Court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the request, submitting that the investigation could not be shared with strangers to it.
Resisting that characterisation, the petitioner’s counsel asserted a public-interest standing:
“We are not strangers. This petition is filed on behalf of the people of India. We have a fundamental right to know. If it is produced to a suspect or a person who is helping. We would not be in a position to assist the Court otherwise.”
The exchange reflects a recurring tension in court-monitored investigations — between the confidentiality an ongoing probe requires and the transparency that petitioners in public-interest litigation claim. The mechanism the Court settled on, allowing suggestions to be routed inward through the Solicitor General without opening the investigation file outward, is a middle path between the two.
The sub judice concern
The Court was also told that, although the matter is sub judice, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had publicly referred to the SIT’s findings. The report notes the submission was placed before the Bench; the Court did not, in the portion reported, pass any specific direction on it.
Signalling that it retained the power to strengthen the probe if needed, the Chief Justice observed:
“If the SIT is doing the job satisfactorily, that’s a different issue. But if you think they are wanting in any manner and qualitative improvement is required, we are open-minded. We can issue additional directions.”
With the SIT investigation still under way, the Court adjourned the matter for further consideration on a future date.
Background
The proceedings concern allegations that funds donated by devotees across the country for the construction of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya were misapplied or embezzled. The temple’s construction was carried out under the aegis of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, constituted following the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya title dispute, which awarded the disputed site for the construction of the temple and directed the setting up of a trust to oversee it. The Trust subsequently ran a nationwide donation drive that gathered contributions from millions of devotees.
The present batch of petitions arises from allegations of financial irregularity in the handling of those donations, with the petitioners seeking a CBI investigation supervised by the Supreme Court. Rather than order a CBI probe at this stage, the Court has constituted and monitored an SIT — now augmented by a forensic auditor to examine the financial trail — and Monday’s order refines that supervisory framework by creating a channel for public input while keeping the investigation’s material within the Court’s control.
The allegations remain under investigation, and no finding has been recorded. The SIT’s status report is yet to be placed before the Court.
Case: 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