Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, July 5: Amidst the ongoing row over the donation fund embezzlement scam in the Ram Temple, the members of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust will meet at the Mani Ramdas Chavni in Ayodhya on Monday to discuss the preliminary report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed by the Uttar Pradesh government to probe scandal.
The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), in the meanwhile, has requested the SIT to record the statements of several Opposition leaders who have publicly alleged large-scale financial irregularities at the temple to probe their allegations. The Opposition leaders named in the VHP’s letter to the SIT included the Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal, AAP leader Sanjay Singh and the Samajwadi Party leader Ram Gopal Yadav.
The VHP has said the allegations made by these leaders make people believe that they were “acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.” In its letter, the VHP said for a “comprehensive and impartial investigation,” it was necessary to record the statements of these Opposition leaders under applicable provisions of law, adding that recording their statements would clarify “the factual basis of allegations made by them,” “the source of their information” and “all documents or other materials in their possession supporting such allegations.”
It added that their statements would further help the investigative agencies to probe the allegations on Ram Temple donation theft, while also urging the SIT to take actions as per law against Opposition leaders, if any allegations were made without any supporting basis.
Speaking to journalists in Kerala’s Wayanad, Ms Priyanka Gandhi Vadra had described the allegations on Ram Temple donation theft, as “tragic” and “shameful” saying people from across the country had contributed to the temple out of faith. “People from all over the country, those who believe and those who have faith, gave donations, and now those donations have been stolen. It is tragic, it is shameful, and the government needs to inquire into what has happened, how it has happened, and why it has happened,” she said.
The first of the five-point agenda of the meeting of the trustees is to discuss the resignations of the Trust’s general secretary Champat Rai and another trustee, Anil Mishra. Both individuals, along with administrator Gopal Rao, have been at the centre of controversy since news of the alleged embezzlement charges at the Ram Temple broke. Trust members are also likely to deliberate on the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer to oversee the management of the temple.
The meeting will be taking place amidst two parallel investigations into the allegations: one led by a SIT, whose mandate has been extended, and another by the local police, based on a First Information Report (FIR). Both the SIT and the police have gathered statements from the three senior Trust officials. As of now, no FIR has been filed against the three Trust functionaries. However, lawyers from the Faizabad Bar Association have submitted a formal petition to the police, requesting an FIR against Champat Rai, Anil Mishra, Gopal Rao, and one other individual.
The SIT comprises Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, Inspector General of Police (Lucknow Range) Kiran S., and Special Secretary in the Finance Department Neelratan Kumar. Eight individuals — Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu, Anukalp Mishra, Avinash Shukla, Karunesh Pandey, Manish Yadav, Lavkush Mishra, Ram Shankar Mishra, and Subhash Srivastava — have been arrested in connection with the alleged embezzlement of donation funds at the Ram Temple, and remanded to 14-day judicial custody by a local court till July 13.
Meanwhile, the CPM Rajya Sabha leader John Brittas has in a letter to the union home minister Amit Shah urged the Centre to bring the Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust under the ambit of the RTI Act. He argued that it could not be kept beyond the purview of the RTI Act just because the government chooses to describe it as “autonomous” when it has been constituted through a government-approved scheme, vested with land acquired under a parliamentary law, and has serving IAS officers nominated as government representatives in its governing framework.
He urged the government to revisit this stance. “Trusts that enjoy unparalleled public faith must also uphold the highest standards of public transparency and accountability,” Mr Brittas wrote on X, sharing a copy of his letter.
Referring to a June 6, 2025 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which held that the trust was not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, Mr Brittas said the CIC’s decision had relied substantially on the stand taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs and requested the Ministry to review its position.
He argued that the issue extended beyond a single RTI application and raised a broader question about whether a trust created through a government-approved scheme, pursuant to a Supreme Court judgment, and vested with property by the Central Government should remain outside the accountability framework envisaged under the RTI Act.
Mr Brittas said the trust’s origins were linked to governmental action following the Supreme Court’s November 9, 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya title dispute. He noted that the Centre had framed the scheme governing the trust under the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, constituted the trust, and vested it with the acquired land through a gazette notification.
According to Mr Brittas, the government also determined the trust’s initial composition and framework. He said that of the trust’s 15 members, 12 were initially nominated by the Central Government, while three were chosen during its first meeting. He questioned the interpretation accepted by the CIC that the trust could not be regarded as having been established or constituted by a government notification because the notification was issued in compliance with directions of the Supreme Court.
“Section 2(h)(d) simply refers to a body established or constituted by a Government notification or order; it does not distinguish between a notification issued pursuant to a judicial direction and one issued independently by the Government,” he said.
Mr Brittas highlighted the presence of serving government officials in the trust’s governance structure, including nominees of the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments and the Ayodhya District Magistrate. He noted that the Centre’s current representative on the trust was an Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs.
“If the Trust is entirely private in character and wholly beyond the sphere of public accountability, why did the Government itself consider it necessary to provide for continuing governmental representation in its governing structure?” he asked.