New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday took significant steps regarding allegations of financial irregularities and embezzlement involving donations received for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.
A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, issued notices to the Union Government, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. This judicial intervention follows a series of petitions seeking an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged theft and misappropriation of public funds.
The Court has specifically directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which was previously established by the Uttar Pradesh government, to submit a comprehensive status report on its findings to date. This report is required to detail the progress of the investigation and must also disclose the specific professional composition of the SIT. During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for both the Centre and the State, indicated that the requested status report would be submitted in a sealed cover.
The legal challenge involves multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by various advocates and political figures. One petition, filed by Narendra Kumar Goswami, not only seeks a CBI-led probe but also requests a formal audit of the Trust’s finances by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). Another petition, submitted by Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, emphasizes the necessity for the government and the Trust to take appropriate measures to safeguard the interests of millions of devotees and donors who contributed to the temple’s construction.
The petitioners have raised serious concerns regarding the current SIT's capacity to handle the matter. They argue that the state-level team lacks the necessary forensic and investigative infrastructure required for a complex financial probe of this scale. Furthermore, it was alleged that the SIT began its inquiry without initially registering a First Information Report (FIR), which could potentially compromise the evidentiary value of any findings during later legal challenges. To support the request for a central agency transfer, one petition cited a previous Supreme Court decision in the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam case, where a state SIT was replaced by an independent multidisciplinary team headed by the CBI.
A third petition, filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Sudhakar Singh, seeks a Supreme Court-monitored investigation and a comprehensive forensic audit of the Trust's entire financial history. This plea highlights the urgent need to preserve electronic and physical evidence, including digital ledgers, UPI transaction logs, CCTV footage, and bank statements, to prevent any potential tampering with records. Singh’s petition also proposes the formation of a temporary court-monitored oversight committee, consisting of retired judicial officers and financial experts, to oversee the Trust’s secular financial and administrative affairs while the investigation remains pending.
Beyond investigative measures, the petitions call for enhanced transparency in the Trust's financial dealings. There are requests for the Court to order the Trust to publish its audited financial statements, donation records, and details of fund utilization on its official website. The petitioners also seek a complete statement of all contributions received since the Trust was constituted, including cash, digital payments, and donations in kind such as gold and silver. Furthermore, there is a request to restrain the Trust from entering into major contracts or making significant financial decisions without prior approval from the proposed oversight committee until the probe is complete.
The allegations of missing funds have reportedly caused widespread concern among the public and the donors who supported the Ram Mandir movement. The Uttar Pradesh police have already registered an FIR following an inquiry by the State-constituted SIT, and eight individuals are currently in custody in connection with the case. Previously, the Allahabad High Court had declined to entertain similar petitions to avoid parallel proceedings, as the matter was already under the consideration of the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, the bench declined a request from the petitioners' counsel to be furnished with a copy of the SIT's status report at this stage, with the Chief Justice noting that the investigation is ongoing. The Court also rejected a suggestion from the Solicitor General to defer the issuance of notice to the temple trust. The counsel for the petitioners argued that much evidence, such as CCTV visuals and DVR records, is perishable and must be preserved immediately. The case has been posted for further consideration on the following Monday.
Case title: 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.
