The Supreme Court on Monday said it will take “remedial steps to ensure transparency” in the management of donations received at the Ram temple in Ayodhya, while making it clear that its immediate priority was to ensure a “speedy, qualitative and impartial investigation in a time-bound manner” into allegations of embezzlement of donations.
Event Context
Also Read | Major changes in security, darshan arrangements at Ram temple likely ahead of Kanwar Yatra
“The nature of investigation involves accounts…We are asking for a report. We are not closing the matter. We would like to know about the investigation. The rest we will decide at a later stage,” observed the bench, while directing the SIT to submit a status report within two weeks.
A special court in Ayodhya on Monday extended the judicial custody of all eight accused in the Ram temple donation theft case by 14 days, till August 10. Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Rajat Verma extended the judicial custody after they were produced before the court virtually from the district jail.
Player Focus
The direction came after solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, informed the court that the state had constituted a four-member SIT headed by inspector general of Police Kiran S, in compliance with the court’s previous observations. Mehta, assisted by senior additional advocate general Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, agreed to the court’s suggestion that a member experienced in forensic audit be inducted into the investigation team. “The present focus is on investigation. We must have a speedy, qualitative and impartial investigation in a time-bound manner,” said the bench.
In its order, the court recorded that the state issued an office memorandum constituting the SIT comprising inspector general Kiran S, deputy inspector general Somen Barma, Ayodhya senior superintendent of police Gaurav Grover and additional superintendent of police Ritesh Kumar Singh. It further noted the solicitor general’s statement that “a member having experience of forensic audit will also be associated as a member of the SIT.”
Also Read | UP govt reconstitutes SIT in Ram temple donation ‘theft’ case after Supreme Court order
During the hearing, senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Sudhakar Singh, urged the court to strengthen transparency in the handling of donations by directing that details of contributions received by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust be placed in the public domain.
“One of the issues would be whether the money sent by people reached the trust or not. People have given ₹500, ₹1,000. Ultimately, there are reports that the money has not reached the trust. Whatever the trust got may be shown on a website so that people will know their money has reached,” Kamat submitted.
The development comes a week after the top court cautioned all parties against politicising the controversy while asking the state to consider placing the investigation under the supervision of the same senior officials who had conducted the preliminary inquiry into the alleged fraud. Acting on those observations, the Uttar Pradesh government on July 25 constituted the new SIT headed by IG Kiran S.
Also Read | Ram Temple probe expands to Lucknow, assets of 54 kin of accused under scanner
Team Analysis
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to associate an expert in forensic audit with the newly constituted special investigation team (SIT), observing that the probe will necessarily involve scrutiny of financial accounts and transactions.
Match Outlook
The bench, however, indicated that these issues will be examined as part of the ongoing investigation. “SIT will look into all aspects…all the remedial steps that need to be taken will be taken by us”, said the bench, assuring that “remedial steps to ensure transparency” would follow.
Kamat also sought the appointment of a retired judge to monitor the probe. The plea was opposed by Mehta, who submitted that such a direction was unnecessary as the present bench was itself monitoring the investigation. The court did not pass any order on that request.
