Supreme Court Closes Pleas For CBI Probe Into Ram Temple Donation Case After Charge Sheet

The Supreme Court on Monday, November 2, 2026, closed pleas seeking a CBI probe into alleged embezzlement of Ram Temple donation funds. The State of Uttar Pradesh told the court its Special Investigation Team had filed a charge sheet, and a bench headed by the Chief Justice disposed of the petitions with liberty to the petitioners to assist the Judicial Magistrate as victims as the trial proceeds.

It was a short disposal order. The bench ordered no fresh inquiry. It recorded the State's statement that the SIT investigation had reached the charge-sheet stage and left questions of evidence, charge and culpability to the trial court.

Before the court were Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Case Trust with Ajay Kumar Rai, Narendra Kumar Goswami and Sudhakar Singh. They alleged misappropriation of money donated for construction of the temple at Ayodhya. Their case was that amounts were siphoned during counting of donations and later put into property by the accused.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State. He said some money was found misappropriated at the counting stage. He said all artefacts and chadhavas, the offerings made by devotees, were intact.

Charge Sheet Ends Ram Temple Donation Pleas

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant led the bench that passed the order after hearing counsel and petitioners in person. The court said the petitioners could assist the Judicial Magistrate in the ongoing proceedings in the same manner as a victim can participate in a criminal trial. That route lets them place material before the trial court through the prosecution instead of seeking a parallel probe from the apex court.

Part of the hearing took an unusual turn. The audio-video feed was muted for a stretch while some petitioners addressing the bench in person made their submissions. The court then resumed open hearing and dictated the disposal order.

That charge sheet is now the base of the criminal case. The magistrate will examine it to decide on cognizance and charge. Witnesses will be examined, documents proved, and the accused will have full opportunity to cross-examine and lead defence. The Supreme Court said nothing on the merits of the allegations or on the guilt of any person named.

What SIT Told the Court

Uttar Pradesh had set up the SIT to look into the complaint of theft and diversion of temple donations. The State told the bench the team had completed fact-finding, recorded statements, traced money movement as far as possible and filed its report before the competent court. In its view, the prayer for transfer to the CBI had lost its immediate purpose.

For disposal, the bench accepted that position. Transfer of investigation is an extraordinary step in India. Courts order it for bias, delay, inter-state ramifications or loss of public confidence that cannot be cured otherwise. Filing of a charge sheet does not by itself prove fairness, but it shifts the focus from investigation to trial, where the magistrate can still order further probe if gaps emerge.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure and now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, that power stays with the trial court. If the magistrate finds parts left uninvestigated, or if new facts surface in evidence, further investigation can be directed. The petitioners, claiming injury to a public religious trust funded by devotees, can flag such gaps through the prosecutor.

Attention at trial is likely to stay on the counting stage. Cash donation counting in large religious institutions involves volunteers, staff, registers, CCTV records where available and bank deposit slips. The prosecution will have to link cash handled at that stage to specific accused and then to the alleged purchase of property. The defence will test each link.

At the same time, the statement on artefacts narrows the case. The SIT did not report disappearance of idols, jewellery or other physical offerings. The trial will centre more on cash accounting than on recovery of objects. That distinction will matter for framing of charges, assessment of loss and sentence in case of conviction.

Outside the courtroom, public interest in the collections has stayed high. Many readers have searched for Shri Ram Temple Ayodhya donation records to understand what was collected and accounted for.

Others have looked for a Ram Temple Ayodhya donation list showing donor-wise figures and deposit details. The Supreme Court did not examine those broader questions. Its order stayed confined to the criminal pleas and to the stage reached by the SIT.

Talk about large gifts has also produced searches for Mukesh Ambani donation to Ram Temple. No such gift figured in the submissions recorded in the order on Monday.

A separate set of queries has asked about Tirupati temple donation for Ram Mandir. The bench made no finding on total sums collected, on any donor list or on any contribution attributed to a particular trust or temple. Those issues remain outside the case unless the prosecution itself relies on them.

Victims Allowed to Assist Trial

Procedurally the liberty granted to the petitioners is limited but of use. The public prosecutor conducts the trial. A victim or informant does not take that place. With leave of court, however, victim's counsel can assist, suggest questions, file written notes and point to evidence already on record.

For Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Case Trust and the individual petitioners, the direction gives a recognised presence before the Judicial Magistrate. They can engage counsel, track dates, seek to assist at cognizance, charge and evidence, and ask for production of further documents where the court permits. They cannot investigate on their own or file a parallel charge sheet.

Future grievances have a clear path. If the petitioners say the SIT charge sheet leaves out suspects or offences, they can urge the magistrate to consider further investigation or cognizance against additional persons where material supports it. If aggrieved by that view, revision or a petition under appropriate provisions remains open before higher courts. The Supreme Court did not shut those doors.

Lawyers in white-collar and trust prosecutions called such disposal routine after a charge sheet. The apex court often lets the trial judge assess the papers first. That avoids parallel findings and protects the accused's right to a fair trial at first instance. It also avoids keeping a central agency on standby after state police finish the first task.