Lucknow: The Ayodhya Ram temple donation row has taken a new turn, with questions being raised over the chargesheet filed earlier this week by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and its decision not to name bank employees or former office-bearers of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust as accused.
The chargesheet names the eight arrested accused—Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Luvkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastav and Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu Yadav—who were also named in the trust’s FIR.
However, bank employees whose roles had reportedly come under scrutiny during the initial SIT investigation have not been named as accused.
According to sources in the Ayodhya police, bank employees had defined responsibilities, including counting donations at the temple and depositing the money in banks. The initial SIT investigation had also flagged shortcomings in the counting process and the duties assigned to bank officials. The roles of at least two bank employees were subsequently examined, but neither was named as an accused in the chargesheet.
The initial investigation also indicated that bank officials were to be assigned duties on a rotational basis alongside employees counting the donations, according to sources in Ayodhya police. They were reportedly responsible for ensuring that counting staff wore the prescribed uniforms. However, the system was allegedly not followed.
The chargesheet also does not name trust functionaries Champat Rai, Anil Mishra and Gopal Rao, whose roles had come under scrutiny during the investigation. Rai and Mishra have since resigned as general secretary and trustee, respectively, of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.
The exclusion of the bank officials has raised questions about where responsibility was fixed for alleged lapses in the donation-counting and deposit process. Questions have also been raised over the extent to which the investigation examined the responsibilities of senior trust office-bearers.
Also Read: Why the Ram Mandir Trust allegations strike at the heart of BJP’s politics
Retired IPS officer, opposition leaders question chargesheet
Retired IPS officer Amitabh Thakur has written to the Uttar Pradesh DGP, saying that despite the investigation uncovering hundreds of instances of missing cash and supervisory lapses, the final chargesheet was limited to eight accused. He sought a fresh investigation under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
According to Thakur’s letter, information emerging from media reports and other sources indicated that the initial SIT investigation had identified 70 separate incidents and serious supervisory lapses. He claimed that the number rose to 105 in the subsequent detailed investigation, including instances in which cash was allegedly removed or concealed without authorisation.
Thakur also pointed to findings that outsiders and other individuals had assisted with counting the donations. He said the SIT had examined CCTV footage, witness statements, banking and financial records, as well as a wider forensic audit.
Former Ayodhya MLA and Samajwadi Party leader Pawan Pandey also alleged that those responsible for the alleged theft had been protected. “Put simply, the small fish have been caught while the bigger fish have been left out. Most of the eight people named in the FIR were either close to Anil Mishra or Champat Rai, who held powerful positions in the trust. Such a large-scale theft could not have taken place without collusion,” Pandey alleged.
He also alleged that several bank employees had been spared and questioned why they had not been named as accused.
Congress leader Sharad Shukla, who has raised questions about the case since its inception, also questioned the chargesheet in an interview with ThePrint.
“There should be clarity in front of the public about the whole issue. The SIT was formed to examine several links in the chain that remain under scrutiny. Who counted the donations? Who was responsible for supervision? Who verified the amount? Who was responsible for the cash until it reached the bank? Who verified the deposit? And if bank officials had a defined role in the process, where was accountability for that role fixed? Were their movements and activities verified through CCTV footage? If discrepancies were found during the investigation, what conclusion was reached? The chargesheet does not name them as accused,” he said.
“There is talk in Ayodhya that Champat Rai and Anil Mishra could be made government witnesses in the case,” he added.
Ayodhya SSP and member of the newly constituted SIT, Gaurav Grover, rejected the claim.
Grover said 173 people had been made witnesses in the case, including Rai and Mishra, but clarified that neither had been made an approver.
“Half-baked information is being presented through social media. That is not true,” Grover told ThePrint.
Other Ayodhya police officials also said statements from 173 people had been recorded, including those of temple trust office-bearers. They said this was because the employees facing allegations worked under the supervision of the trust’s office-bearers.
According to the officials, no allegations against any trust office-bearer had been established so far, and no action had therefore been taken against them.
The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust has not issued a statement on the chargesheet.
How the second SIT came into the picture
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath ordered the formation of a second SIT after the Supreme Court made observations in the case in July. The team comprises Lucknow Range IG Kiran S, Ayodhya Range DIG Somen Verma and Ayodhya SSP Gaurav Grover.
Earlier, on 13 June, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust had asked Adityanath to order an SIT probe into the alleged theft of donations.
A three-member SIT headed by Lucknow Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant was subsequently constituted.
The first FIR in the case was registered on 25 June at the Ram Janmabhoomi police station on a written complaint by Trust member Krishna Mohan. It named the eight accused who were later arrested, along with other unidentified persons.
The SIT’s preliminary report later gave Champat Rai a clean chit. However, Anil Mishra and some bank employees reportedly remained under scrutiny. Despite this, the chargesheet has not named them as accused.
(Edited by Chingkheinganbi Mayengbam)