The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13) issued notices to the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government over petitions seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged embezzlement of donations received at the Ram temple in Ayodhya. It also notified Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, which manages the Hindu shrine. The apex court directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the state’s Yogi Adityanath government to file a status report on the investigation, including the probe body’s composition.
Also read: Ram Mandir scandal has snapped RSS’s moral authority: Political theorist Pradip K Datta
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the petitions. Solicitor General (S-G) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the state, told the Court the status report would be filed in a sealed cover. The bench turned down the S-G’s request to defer issuing notice to the trust.
The Federal took up the matter for discussion in this special episode of Capital Beat with a panel featuring Sharat Pradhan, an author and political commentator; Sunita Aron, a senior Journalist; and Sarvesh Tripathi, the national spokesperson of the Samajwadi Party (SP), Uttar Pradesh’s main opposition party.
Court says status report not to be shared report
One of the petitioners’ counsels sought preservation of CCTV visuals and records, and a copy of the status report filed by the state. The bench declined the latter for now, with Chief Justice Surya Kant noting, “We will see later. It’s an ongoing investigation.” The matter is listed for hearing on July 20. On that day, the apex court will consider the petitions along with the SIT’s probe status report.
Also read: Amid donation row, Ayodhya Ram temple to get first CEO
Tripathi said the case is at an early stage. “It is a very initial stage. It just means that Court has started hearing it and if it finds it worth hearing, so it has issued notice. It is not on the verge of closing, not at all,” he said.
On the sealed cover submission, he remarked, “The sealed cover report is standard procedure followed by the Court. There’s nothing wrong with it, because this is an ongoing inquiry.”
Four petitions before SC
It may be noted here that four petitions are before the Supreme Court pertaining to the matter. The first, filed by petitioner-in-person Narendra Kumar Goswami, seeks a CBI probe into the alleged donation embezzlement and demands a Comptroller and Auditor General audit of the trust’s finances.
The second petition, filed by Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, seeks similar directions for a CBI probe and urges that the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and the trust act jointly to safeguard the interests of devotees and donors.
The third petition, filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Sudhakar Singh, seeks a comprehensive forensic financial audit and a Supreme Court-monitored CBI investigation. It also seeks preservation of UPI (Unified Payments Interface) logs and bank records, and an oversight committee for major trust decisions.
The fourth petition demands greater transparency, including public disclosure of the trust’s major investments, audited statements and donation records, and seeks an independent agency for a forensic audit.
‘SITs formed to give tailor-made report’
Pradhan raised questions over the SIT’s credibility, pointing to its leadership. “The manner in which the whole probe was started through a SIT itself arouses suspicion. My experience as a journalist is that SITs are invariably formed to ensure a tailor-made report, which certainly never unearths the truth,” he said.
He said the head of the SIT is an IAS officer facing charges under Section 420 and Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. “The Court refused to accept the SIT report on two occasions, describing it as bogus, and the police were asked to investigate both times,” Pradhan said, adding that CCTV footage had reportedly been deleted for eight months.
Lucknow-Delhi politics
Asked about the political dynamic between the Uttar Pradesh government and the Centre, Pradhan said the state government had constituted the SIT and suggested the Centre was not in agreement with it. He said members of the temple trust, other than officials who serve by virtue of their office, had been selected by the government and the prime minister, and had their roots in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
Also read: Ram Temple donation probe: Is SIT’s credibility already in question?
“If the Supreme Court agrees to monitor this probe, I am sure all of them will act more objectively than they would if the probe continued as a state government probe under the SIT,” Pradhan said. He said a probe combining the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, monitored by the Supreme Court, would carry the most credibility. “That would be the best solution, because so far whatever has been done is very shabby and shady,” he said.
‘Better to be late than never’
Sunita Aron said the case would not be closed without reaching a conclusion. “It has to reach some conclusive end, and if the Supreme Court has taken up a case like the Ram Temple donation theft, then it will reach some conclusive event,” she said.
On the timing of the notice, she said, “It’s better to be late than never. Tampering could have been done with the surveillance and other reports.” She said the sealed cover procedure was standard, noting the preliminary SIT report was already in the public domain while the investigation continued.
Aron said the notices give people hope. “Judiciary getting involved raises hopes that we will get to know who did it and what happened, and how much. Nobody knows how much — it’s in speculation whether it’s in crores, and whether it includes the land deals,” she said.
SC needs to ensure probe is credible: Pradhan
Pradhan said the Court would need to ensure the probe, in whatever form it takes, is credible. “A Supreme Court-monitored inquiry led by the CBI in collaboration with the Enforcement Directorate can expose the entire gamut of this whole matter,” he said, adding that destruction of evidence, including the deleted CCTV footage, was a serious matter under the Indian Evidence Act.
Aron said the next hearing, a week away, would clarify how the case proceeds.
Comments are closed.