On Monday, the Supreme Court emphasized that its oversight of the investigation into the alleged embezzlement of donations for the Ram temple in Ayodhya is separate from the ongoing Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri land dispute. The court has invited suggestions from petitioners and public-spirited individuals on how to enhance the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of the special investigation team (SIT) tasked with examining the potential misapplication of trust funds.
The court had then asked the Uttar Pradesh government to consider placing the criminal investigation under the supervision of the same three-member SIT that had conducted the preliminary inquiry and found prima facie evidence of alleged financial irregularities. Eight accused were subsequently arrested and nearly ₹ 80 lakh allegedly diverted from temple donations was recovered, according to the earlier proceedings.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the SIT, constituted by the court to investigate the allegations, was answerable and accountable to it and would submit its status report directly to the Supreme Court.
The bench directed that the SIT’s status report, which has already been prepared, be filed in the Supreme Court registry in a sealed cover for its perusal. Since the investigation is still underway, the bench posted the matter for further consideration after three weeks. The allegations surfaced in June over the suspected siphoning of donations before they were deposited into the temple trust’s designated bank accounts. Several petitions have since sought an independent or court-monitored investigation and forensic audit of the trust’s finances.
The development follows the Supreme Court’s July 20 intervention, when it cautioned against politicising the probe and sought to ensure that the investigation was conducted in a fair, impartial and dispassionate manner.
The bench told the parties that if they had suggestions for improving the functioning of the institution or the investigation, they could place them before the court. “If you have any suggestion for the betterment of the institution, give that to the learned SG,” said the bench. The court said the issue was being examined “only for the purpose of investigation” and declined to entertain anything beyond that in the disposed title suit. It said parties were free to pursue a review or any other appropriate remedy separately.
