Ayodhya Ram Temple Donation Case: Jairam Ramesh Questions SIT Probe After 105 CCTV Revelations
Jairam Ramesh questions Ayodhya Ram Temple donation theft investigation (Image Champat Rai on X)
By AMIT KUMAR
The Congress leader has questioned the delay between the June 4 cash recovery and June 25 FIR, and why three senior Trust functionaries were made witnesses rather than accused.
New Delhi, September 26, 2026 — Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh has questioned the investigation into the alleged theft and misappropriation of offerings at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya, citing revelations reported from the chargesheet filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Ramesh reacted on X to a Hindi newspaper report detailing how a video showing ₹2.25 lakh recovered from a bathroom in the temple’s cash-counting area was allegedly sent to then Trust general secretary Champat Rai on June 4. According to the report, Rai told investigators that he received the video and message while travelling from Delhi to Ayodhya, and that CCTV footage was shown to him after he reached Ayodhya the following day.
The FIR in the case was registered on June 25, meaning 21 days elapsed between the reported June 4 recovery and the registration of the criminal case. The FIR followed the preliminary findings of the SIT and named eight accused.
Ramesh has asked why criminal action was not initiated earlier if the recovery, CCTV footage and suspicions concerning employees had already emerged. He has also questioned what happened during the intervening period.
105 CCTV incidents in SIT findings
The questions have gained fresh attention after the SIT’s investigation was presented before the Supreme Court. The SIT reportedly identified 105 instances of alleged unauthorised removal or concealment of cash during the counting process, based on CCTV footage and other evidence. The figure was higher than the 70 incidents cited in the earlier preliminary probe.
The SIT subsequently filed its chargesheet against eight accused in an Ayodhya anti-corruption court on September 23. Reports put the document, including annexures and supporting material, at between roughly 60,000 and 70,000 pages. Investigators said they found evidence of alleged cash diversion during the counting process, but no evidence of pilferage during the subsequent transfer of money to banks.
Reports based on the chargesheet say Avinash Shukla was allegedly seen removing offering money on 85 occasions in CCTV footage, while other accused were also allegedly shown removing money or assisting in its removal.
The investigation also examined mobile messages, call records, bank accounts, property transactions, financial trails and cash recoveries. Investigators reportedly recovered around ₹79.85 lakh linked to the case from seven of the eight accused.
Why were senior Trust functionaries witnesses?
One of Ramesh’s central questions concerns the status of Champat Rai, Anil Mishra and Gopal Rao. Reports on the chargesheet say that the three were not named as accused and their statements were recorded as witnesses.
Ramesh has questioned whether the investigation can establish responsibility for the complete donation-handling system without examining the role of those who were responsible for its administration and oversight. He has also asked why the investigation ultimately focused on eight accused despite the larger number of CCTV incidents and the wider network of employees examined during the probe.
These are, however, questions raised by Ramesh and the Congress; their allegations should be distinguished from the findings actually contained in the chargesheet. The SIT’s reported case is that the alleged diversion occurred principally during the cash-counting stage and that the eight arrested persons are the accused against whom the chargesheet has been filed.
Congress seeks wider scrutiny
Ramesh has called for an impartial and transparent investigation and has demanded scrutiny of the entire financial and management system associated with temple donations. He has also sought a forensic audit and argued that the wider responsibility, if any, should be established through the evidence rather than limited to the individuals already charged.
The Supreme Court has been receiving status updates on the investigation. The latest developments have therefore shifted the issue from allegations surrounding the initial recovery of cash to questions about the scope of the investigation, the evidence identified in the chargesheet and the accountability of the wider donation-management system.
Ramesh has argued that the matter concerns offerings made by devotees to the Ram temple and that the full chain of responsibility should be established before the case is treated as concluded.
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
