Supreme Court declines further probe pleas in Ram temple donation case, allows petitioners to assist trial

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday disposed of a batch of petitions seeking a court-monitored probe into alleged financial irregularities in the handling of donations and offerings received by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, after the Uttar Pradesh government informed it that a charge sheet had been filed in the matter.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana directed the Judicial Magistrate concerned to proceed in accordance with law, while granting liberty to the petitioners to assist the trial court in view of the public interest involved.

Clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the apex court said the petitioners could assist the proceedings on the same premise as the law permits victims of crime to assist the court.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government, informed the CJI Surya Kant-led Bench that the charge sheet had been filed. He further submitted that the investigation had revealed that thefts were taking place during the counting of donations and offerings at the temple.

Mehta told the apex court that the bank accounts of each of the employees accused in the case had been examined, along with their past transactions, to ascertain the amounts deposited by them. He added that some of the accused had also invested in properties.

Taking note of the submissions, the Supreme Court said the matter should now proceed before the competent trial court in accordance with law.

It observed that the case involved an element of public interest and, therefore, the petitioners who had filed the PILs should be permitted to assist the judicial proceedings wherever necessary.

The batch of petitions included a writ petition filed by advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami, a criminal writ petition filed by petitioner-in-person Ajay Kumar Rai, a separate plea moved by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Sudhakar Singh, and another petition filed by Hindu Dharma Parishad.

The petitions sought a court-monitored investigation into alleged financial irregularities in the handling of donations and offerings received by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. They also sought the preservation of donation-related records, greater transparency in accounting and a comprehensive forensic audit of the Trust’s finances.

At the previous hearing, the Uttar Pradesh government had informed the Supreme Court that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the alleged irregularities had substantially completed its investigation and would file the charge sheet within the stipulated period.

The state government had also submitted a status report in a sealed cover, detailing the investigation undertaken by the reconstituted SIT.

According to the report, the SIT had analysed CCTV footage and other material to identify the accused and examine records relating to donations and offerings.

The analysis of CCTV footage had reportedly revealed 105 incidents of theft of donations at the temple. The report had further stated that receipts for valuable items received as offerings were generated through software and that such valuables were kept in State Bank of India (SBI) lockers.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to reconstitute the SIT to ensure a fair, speedy and qualitative investigation into the allegations.

The reconstituted SIT was headed by Inspector General of Police Kiran S., with DIG Ayodhya Somen Verma and SSP Ayodhya Dr Gaurav Grover as its members.

Taking note of allegations concerning the alleged misappropriation of Trust funds, the apex court had also indicated that a forensic auditor should be associated with the investigation.

“Since the nature of the investigation involves alleged misappropriation of trust funds, the Solicitor General has fairly agreed that a forensic auditor shall also be associated as a member of the SIT,” the Supreme Court had recorded in its earlier order.