Ram Mandir Donation Theft Case : Supreme Court Closes Monitoring as SIT Files 60,000-Page Chargesheet | 105 Theft Instances, 8 Accused, Rs 79.85 Lakh Seized, Full Timeline and What Happens Next

The Ram Mandir donation theft case, which shook devotees across India this year, has moved from the Supreme Court to the trial court. On Monday, 2 November 2026, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant closed its monitoring of the investigation after the Uttar Pradesh government said a chargesheet had been filed against eight accused. The petitioners have been allowed to assist the trial court because of the public interest involved.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) found 105 instances of alleged theft or concealment of cash during the counting of offerings inside the temple, and investigators seized about ₹79.85 lakh from the accused. In this Election Guru explainer we cover how the case started, the two SITs, the findings, the Supreme Court hearings, the political angle and what happens next.

Ram Mandir Donation Case at a Glance

Detail	Information
Temple	Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, Ayodhya
Trust	Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust
Allegation	Cash offerings removed or hidden during counting before deposit in bank
Accused	8 persons, mostly staff involved in counting
Instances found by SIT	105
Cash seized	₹79,85,493
Chargesheet	More than 60,000 pages, filed in September before the anti-corruption court, Ayodhya
Supreme Court bench	CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana
SC order	2 November 2026: pleas disposed, monitoring closed

How the Case Started

On 7 June, Samajwadi Party leader Tej Narayan ‘Pawan’ Pandey alleged that between ₹5 crore and ₹7.5 crore in temple donations had been siphoned off. The allegation quickly became a national story, since the temple receives large cash offerings from millions of devotees every month after its consecration in January 2024. On 13 June, the Uttar Pradesh government set up the first SIT, and on 26 June eight people involved in handling and counting donations were arrested.

The Two SITs

SIT	Headed By / Members	Key Finding
First SIT (June)	Lucknow divisional commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant	Interim report recorded 70 alleged theft instances
Second SIT (July, on SC direction)	IG Lucknow range Kiran S, DIG Ayodhya Somen Barma, SSP Ayodhya Gaurav Grover, Addl. SP Barabanki Ritesh Kumar Singh	105 instances of alleged theft during counting

The second SIT used CCTV footage, witness statements, donation records, digital logs and banking documents. It found that cash was allegedly diverted during counting inside the temple, before being moved to bank lockers.

What the SIT Found

• 105 instances of alleged unauthorised removal or concealment of cash during counting inside the temple premises
• No evidence of pilferage when counted cash moved from the temple to the banks
• ₹79,85,493 seized from the accused, reportedly hidden in bathrooms, haystacks and even cow dung cakes
• Valuables verified: 803 items with receipts and 86 items without receipts, with no discrepancy found
• Silver: about 944.411 kg sent for melting to the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India was verified
• Accused were traced through bank accounts and property purchases, according to the Solicitor General

The Eight Accused

The eight people arrested were mostly staff involved in counting offerings. According to Outlook, they are Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Ram Shankar Yadav ‘Tinnu’, Manish Yadav, Subhash Srivastava, Avinash Shukla, Rama Shankar Mishra and Karunesh Pandey. They face charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including criminal breach of trust, cheating, theft and criminal conspiracy, along with the Prevention of Corruption Act. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the trial court.

Supreme Court Hearings

Date	What Happened in the Supreme Court
July	Directed UP to reconstitute the SIT
16 September	SIT filed its status report
21 September	Bench expressed satisfaction with the probe; declined to share report with petitioners to keep matter within trial court’s domain
September	UP said the chargesheet would be filed by 25 September, within the 90-day limit to avoid default bail
2 November 2026	Pleas disposed; monitoring closed; petitioners may assist the trial court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the UP government. He told the court that an audit found all artefacts and donations accounted for, apart from the cash allegedly removed during counting. The bench directed the judicial magistrate concerned to proceed in accordance with law.

Why the 90-Day Chargesheet Deadline Mattered

Under criminal law, if police do not file a chargesheet within the prescribed period (90 days for serious offences) after arrest, the accused become entitled to default bail. Because the eight accused were arrested on 26 June, the deadline fell around 25 September. The UP government assured the Supreme Court it would file before that date, and the chargesheet of more than 60,000 pages was filed in September.

Political Angle

The case had a strong political edge from the start because it was raised by a Samajwadi Party leader against a temple closely tied to the BJP’s politics. The Ayodhya (Faizabad) Lok Sabha seat itself was won by the SP’s Awadhesh Prasad in 2024, a result that became a symbol for the opposition. Opposition parties used the case to question the management of the temple’s finances, while the BJP and the UP government pointed to the speed of arrests and the SIT probe as proof of zero tolerance.

Party	Position
Samajwadi Party	Raised the allegation; demanded accountability for donations
Congress	Has in the past sought court-monitored probes into Ayodhya trust deals (2021 land row)
BJP / UP Government	Points to quick arrests, two SITs and chargesheet
Temple Trust	Says all valuables were verified with no discrepancy

With the UP Assembly election due in early 2027, the case is likely to be raised again during the campaign.

Also Read: UP Election 2027: Akhilesh Won’t Contest, BJP May Field Yogi

Ram Mandir: Background

Year	Event
2019	Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute (9 November)
2020	Trust formed; foundation stone laid (5 August)
2024	Pran Pratishtha ceremony (22 January)
2026	Donation theft case; SIT probe; chargesheet; SC closes monitoring

What Happens Next

• The trial will proceed before the competent court in Ayodhya
• Petitioners may assist the court in the public interest
• The Supreme Court is no longer monitoring the case
• Accused can seek bail and contest the charges during trial
• The trust is expected to tighten counting procedures, such as more CCTV coverage and bank-supervised counting

Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust

The temple is managed by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, set up by the central government in February 2020 after the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict. The trust is responsible for construction, management and the handling of offerings.

Role	Name
President	Mahant Nritya Gopal Das
General Secretary	Champat Rai
Construction Committee Chairman	Nripendra Misra

Legal Terms in This Case Explained

Term	Meaning
SIT	Special Investigation Team set up for a specific case
Chargesheet	Final police report listing the accused, evidence and charges
Default bail	Bail the accused can claim if the chargesheet is not filed on time
Criminal breach of trust	Dishonestly misusing property entrusted to someone
Criminal conspiracy	Agreement between two or more people to commit an offence
Court-monitored probe	Investigation where the court periodically reviews progress

BNS Sections Commonly Used in Such Cases

Offence	Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Theft	Section 303
Criminal breach of trust	Section 316
Cheating	Section 318
Criminal conspiracy	Section 61

Reports say the accused face charges of criminal breach of trust, cheating, theft and criminal conspiracy under the BNS, along with the Prevention of Corruption Act. The exact sections in the chargesheet have not been fully reported.

How Temple Offerings Are Usually Counted

At major temples, offerings from donation boxes (hundis) are counted at regular intervals by staff and bank employees, usually under CCTV surveillance. The cash is sorted, counted and deposited, while gold and silver items are weighed and recorded. The Ayodhya case shows the risk when large amounts of cash are handled manually. Common safeguards include:

• CCTV coverage of every counting table
• Counting by bank staff along with temple staff
• Random rotation of counting teams
• Frisking of staff before leaving the counting hall
• Digital donation options such as UPI and online receipts

Key People in the Case

Name	Role
CJI Surya Kant	Headed the Supreme Court bench
Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana	Members of the bench
Tushar Mehta	Solicitor General, for the UP government
IG Kiran S	Head of the reconstituted SIT
Vijay Vishwas Pant	Headed the first SIT
Tej Narayan “Pawan” Pandey	SP leader who raised the allegation

Why This Case Drew National Attention

The Ram temple in Ayodhya is one of India’s most visited religious sites since its consecration, and devotees from across the country make offerings in cash, gold and silver. Any allegation that donations were stolen touches public faith directly. The involvement of the Supreme Court, the formation of two SITs and the high-profile political debate all made the case a national story. The court’s decision to close monitoring after the chargesheet signals that it is satisfied the investigation is complete enough for a trial to begin.

Numbers in the Case

Figure	What It Refers To
₹5 – 7.5 crore	Amount alleged to have been siphoned off by SP leader (not established by SIT)
70	Theft instances in first SIT’s interim report
105	Theft instances found by reconstituted SIT
₹79,85,493	Cash seized from the accused
8	Persons arrested and chargesheeted
60,000+	Pages in the chargesheet
944.411 kg	Silver sent for melting and verified
803 + 86	Valuables verified with and without receipts

The gap between the amount alleged by the SP leader and the cash actually seized is likely to be a key point of argument during the trial and in political debate.

Questions Still Unanswered

Even with the chargesheet filed, several questions remain open and are likely to be argued in the trial court:

• How much money was actually removed in total, given that only about ₹79.85 lakh has been seized
• Whether anyone beyond the eight counting staff was involved or benefited
• How the theft went unnoticed for so long despite CCTV and supervision
• What changes the trust has made to its counting process
• Whether the petitioners will seek further investigation before the trial court

The Supreme Court made it clear it can issue further directions if additional investigation is needed, but for now it has left these questions to the trial court in Ayodhya. The petitioners, who have been allowed to assist the court, may raise them during the proceedings.

How Long Could the Trial Take?

Criminal trials in India with thousands of pages of evidence and many witnesses often take years. The trial court will first decide on framing of charges, after which the prosecution will present witnesses and documents, followed by the defence. The accused can apply for bail during this period. Given the public interest and the Supreme Court’s earlier involvement, the case may be prioritised, but no trial dates have been reported yet.

Election Guru Analysis

The Ram Mandir donation case shows how faith, finance and politics are tightly linked in Uttar Pradesh. The SIT’s finding of 105 instances and the large cash seizure confirm that there were serious lapses in the counting process, but the probe also found no loss of valuables or bank deposits. Now that the Supreme Court has stepped back, the trial court will decide guilt or innocence, while the political debate will continue into the 2027 UP election.

Ram Mandir Donation Theft Case FAQ