New Delhi, July 27: The Uttar Pradesh government on Monday informed the Supreme Court that it had constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the alleged theft of donations made by devotees at Lord Ram’s temple in Ayodhya, with the Court directing the SIT to submit a status report on the progress of its investigation.
Besides seeking a status report from the SIT on its investigation, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan sought the inclusion of a chartered accountant with experience in forensic audit in the SIT, a suggestion accepted by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government.
The SIT constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government is headed by Inspector General of Police Kiran S. and includes senior-ranking police officers as its members.
“We have been informed SIT has taken charge. Let the SIT submit a status report on the next date. If SIT faces some issues, then also, we will issue some directions,” the Court observed.
The Court directed the SIT to submit the status report on its investigation before the next date of hearing on August 10, 2026.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for one of the petitioners, sought the uploading of the receipts issued to devotees who had contributed amounts ranging from Rs. 100 to Rs. 500 for the construction of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. He submitted that the donations collected through these receipts had allegedly not reached the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust, which manages the construction and administration of the temple. The senior advocate urged that, in the interest of transparency, all receipts issued by the Trust be uploaded on its website.
However, the Court said that, for the present, its focus was on ensuring a fair and speedy investigation into the allegations of theft and that measures to ensure transparency would be considered after the SIT’s report was placed on record.
“Let the SIT give its report. All remedial steps to ensure transparency will be taken. We are on qualitative investigation of the incident. We are focused on having a fair, speedy and impartial investigation,” the CJI observed.
On the last date of hearing, July 20, 2026, while exhorting the parties not to politicise the issue, the Supreme Court had favoured an investigation by a Special Investigation Team comprising senior-ranking police officers. The Court had described the alleged theft of donations as a “simple case of crime.”
During the hearing on July 13, while issuing notice to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust, which manages the affairs of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya, the Supreme Court had called for a status report from the SIT on its inquiry into the alleged siphoning of donations.
On July 20, the Uttar Pradesh government told the Court that the SIT constituted by the State had been tasked with ascertaining the veracity of the allegations of misappropriation and had, prima facie, found that theft of funds had taken place.
“It (SIT) was not an investigation team; it was set up to (inquire into the allegations) … its (SIT) prima facie finding is that an offence has been committed. A separate police investigation is going on, an FIR has been registered, and eight people have been arrested,” the Uttar Pradesh government had told the Court.
The Supreme Court is seized of three petitions raising different but related prayers. The first, filed by advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, seeks registration of a regular criminal case and a time-bound CBI investigation into the alleged misappropriation and diversion of donations made by devotees at the Ram Temple. It also seeks preservation of all physical, electronic and financial records.
The second petition, filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Sudhakar Singh, seeks transfer of the ongoing probe to the CBI under the supervision of the Supreme Court. It also seeks constitution of a temporary court-monitored oversight committee to supervise the Trust’s secular financial and administrative affairs, preservation of all financial and electronic records, and periodic public disclosure of audited accounts, donation receipts and utilisation of funds while protecting the privacy of donors.
A third petitioner also pressed for urgent preservation of electronic evidence, submitting during the hearing that it was susceptible to tampering while the investigation remained pending.
Pramod kumar is a Senior Journalist, Covering Supreem Court of India
