SIT finds 105 theft instances in Ram Temple donations case
The SIT set up by the Supreme Court to probe alleged irregularities in accounting for donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has found 105 distinct instances of alleged theft after analysing CCTV footage, witness statements and donation records, people familiar with the matter said. The finding is part of a status report filed on September 16, up from 70 instances in the first SIT's interim report. The UP government assured the court a charge sheet would be filed by September 25. Investigators seized ₹79,85,493 from eight employees arrested on June 26.
Source
Hindustan Times — India · read the original report ↗
Desk check · some claims need care
What the desk checked (5)
- SIT found 105 distinct instances of alleged theft after analysing CCTV footage, witness statements and donation records. — Attributed only to unnamed 'people familiar with the matter'; status report not public.
- Figure marks an increase over 70 instances in the interim report of the first SIT led by Vijay Vishwas Pant. — Figure appears in source, attributed to the same unnamed persons.
- UP government, through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, assured the Supreme Court the charge sheet would be filed by September 25. — Attributed to court proceedings; 90-day default bail deadline explanation given in source.
- Eight employees arrested on June 26 and ₹79,85,493 seized from them, recovered from bathrooms, haystacks and cow dung cakes. — Specific figure and names appear in source; sourcing to investigators, unverified externally.
- Samajwadi Party leader Tej Narayan 'Pawan' Pandey alleged on June 7 that ₹5 crore to ₹7.5 crore was siphoned off. — Clearly attributed allegation, not an established finding.
Analysts’ view opinion
The real legal pivot here is not the number 105 but the September 25 date — the expiry of the 90-day statutory period from the first arrest. If a charge sheet is not filed by then, default bail stops being a matter of judicial discretion and becomes an enforceable right for the accused, which explains why the state's assurance to the court is framed around timing rather than findings. The jump from 70 to 105 alleged instances signals a widening investigation, but an expanded allegation set is not the same as proof.
- Default bail on expiry of the statutory period attaches to the accused's liberty interest and turns on the timeliness of filing, not on how strong the case appears.
- The Supreme Court's refusal to hand the status report to petitioners at this stage is consistent with the settled approach of not displacing the sessions judge's jurisdiction while a trial court is seized of the matter.
- The mix of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita charges — criminal breach of trust, cheating, theft, conspiracy — alongside Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act raises the question of whether the accused fall within the 'public servant' framework, which could become a contested issue at trial.
- The 105 'distinct instances' were reconstructed from CCTV, witness statements and records, which is largely circumstantial; linking each instance to a named individual is the prosecution's central task.
- The ₹79,85,493 seizure looks like strong physical evidence, but the burden of establishing its provenance rests with the prosecution, and everything so far remains at the allegation stage.
What to watch — Watch whether the charge sheet is actually filed by September 25, whether it carries all 105 instances, and how the sessions court then treats any bail applications.
The story establishes allegations and investigative conclusions only — no guilt has been determined, the full report is not public, and the alleged ₹5-7.5 crore figure remains unverified.
Deep dive
Research brief · 8 facts · 7 dates · exam-readyThe brief
Context
Allegations surfaced in June that a portion of cash offerings made by devotees at the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya was being siphoned off before reaching the temple's designated bank account. After a first SIT set up by the Uttar Pradesh government, the Supreme Court directed the constitution of a second SIT, which is now probing the accounting irregularities. Its status report filed on September 16 says 105 distinct instances of alleged theft have been identified, and the UP government has told the court a charge sheet will be filed by September 25.
Key facts
- The SIT set up on Supreme Court directions has found 105 distinct instances of alleged theft, based on CCTV footage, witness statements and donation records.
- The finding is part of a status report submitted to the Supreme Court on September 16.
- The first SIT, led by Vijay Vishwas Pant, had recorded 70 instances of donation theft in its interim report; it was set up by the UP government on June 13.
- The second SIT was constituted on July 26 and comprises IG (Lucknow zone) Kiran S, Ayodhya range DIG Somen Barma, Ayodhya SSP Gaurav Grover and Barabanki additional SP Ritesh Kumar Singh.
- Eight employees handling and counting donations were arrested on June 26; investigators seized Rs 79,85,493 from them, recovered from bathrooms, haystacks and cow dung cakes.
- Samajwadi Party leader Tej Narayan 'Pawan' Pandey alleged on June 7 that donations worth Rs 5 crore to Rs 7.5 crore were siphoned off from temple offerings.
- The accused were booked under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 306, 316(5), 317(4), 317(5), 61 and 3(5) and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench the charge sheet would be filed by September 25, when the 90-day statutory period from the first arrest expires.
Timeline
- June 7SP leader Tej Narayan 'Pawan' Pandey alleges donations worth Rs 5 crore to Rs 7.5 crore were siphoned off from temple offerings.
- June 13Uttar Pradesh government sets up the first SIT, led by Vijay Vishwas Pant; its interim report records 70 instances of theft.
- June 26Eight employees associated with handling and counting donations are arrested; Rs 79,85,493 seized from them.
- July 26Second SIT constituted following Supreme Court directions, with four senior police officers.
- September 16SIT submits status report to the Supreme Court recording 105 distinct instances of alleged theft.
- Monday (hearing)Bench led by CJI Surya Kant takes note of the report, expresses satisfaction, declines to share it with petitioners at this stage.
- September 25Deadline assured by UP government for filing charge sheet; 90-day statutory period from first arrest expires, after which default bail becomes possible.
Who has a stake
- Supreme Court bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana) — Monitoring the probe; expressed satisfaction with it but declined to release the status report to petitioners to preserve the sessions judge's jurisdiction.
- Second SIT (IG Kiran S, DIG Somen Barma, SSP Gaurav Grover, Addl SP Ritesh Kumar Singh) — Responsible for reconstructing how donations were siphoned off and completing the probe within the statutory timeline.
- Uttar Pradesh government (represented by SG Tushar Mehta) — Set up the first SIT; committed to filing the charge sheet by September 25 to avoid default bail for the accused.
- Eight arrested employees — Face charges of criminal breach of trust, cheating, theft and conspiracy; eligible for default bail if no charge sheet is filed by September 25.
- Devotees and the temple trust — Integrity and accounting of cash and valuable offerings donated at the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple.
- Samajwadi Party leader Tej Narayan 'Pawan' Pandey — Complainant whose June 7 allegation triggered the controversy.
Why it matters
The case involves public donations to one of India's most prominent religious institutions, making transparency in handling cash and valuable offerings a matter of wide public trust. It also shows how Supreme Court monitoring and statutory investigation deadlines shape the pace of a criminal probe, since failure to file a charge sheet within 90 days of the first arrest could let the accused walk out on default bail.
UPSC angle
Prelims pointers
- Second SIT in the Ram Temple donations case was constituted on July 26 on Supreme Court directions; the first, led by Vijay Vishwas Pant, was set up by the UP government on June 13.
- Status report of September 16 records 105 alleged theft instances, up from 70 in the first SIT's interim report.
- Rs 79,85,493 was seized from eight employees arrested on June 26, recovered from bathrooms, haystacks and cow dung cakes.
- Accused booked under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 306, 316(5), 317(4), 317(5), 61 and 3(5) and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Default bail arises if a charge sheet is not filed within the 90-day statutory period from the first arrest; in this case it expires September 25.
- Supreme Court bench hearing the matter was led by CJI Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
Mains framing
The Ayodhya Ram Temple donations case illustrates the governance gap in handling large volumes of untraceable cash offerings at major religious institutions. According to the source, investigators reconstructed the alleged siphoning by analysing hundreds of hours of surveillance video, digital logging receipts and bank deposit records, finding that a portion of offerings was diverted before deposit into the temple's designated bank account and later moved to bank lockers; 105 distinct instances of alleged theft were identified, up from 70 in the first SIT's interim report, with Rs 79,85,493 recovered from eight arrested employees. The episode raises three analytical threads: the internal-control weakness in counting and depositing cash donations, including the mechanism for valuables donated by devotees, which the status report separately detailed; the role of constitutional courts in supervising investigations, seen in the Supreme Court constituting a second SIT while refusing to release the status report so as not to displace the sessions judge's jurisdiction; and the discipline imposed by procedural safeguards, since the 90-day limit on filing a charge sheet from the first arrest directly conditions the state's timeline. The way forward, on the source's own terms, lies in completing the charge sheet within the statutory deadline and strengthening auditable, digitised records of donation handling so that reliance on CCTV reconstruction after the fact is not the only check.
Key terms
- Special Investigation Team (SIT)
- A dedicated team of police officers formed to investigate a specific case; here, two SITs were formed, one by the UP government and one on Supreme Court directions.
- Status report
- A periodic report filed by investigators before a court monitoring a probe, detailing findings, arrests and evidence; filed here on September 16.
- Default bail
- Bail an accused becomes entitled to if the investigating agency fails to file a charge sheet within the statutory period, 90 days from first arrest in this case.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
- India's criminal code under which the accused were booked for offences such as criminal breach of trust, cheating, theft and criminal conspiracy.
- Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 13(1)(a)
- Provision on criminal misconduct by a public servant, invoked alongside BNS sections against the eight arrested men.
- Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, Ayodhya
- The temple whose donation collection and accounting are the subject of the alleged irregularities under investigation.
Practice questions
- Court-monitored SITs have become a common response to allegations of large-scale financial wrongdoing. Discuss their utility and limitations, using the Ram Temple donations probe as an illustration.
- What is default bail, and how does the statutory 90-day charge sheet deadline shape the conduct of criminal investigations in India? Explain with reference to a recent case.
- Cash-based donations at major religious institutions pose distinctive accountability challenges. Suggest institutional and technological safeguards to ensure transparency.
Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.