The Supreme Court disposed of petitions seeking an independent probe into alleged Ayodhya Ram temple donation embezzlement.
The nearly 70,000-page chargesheet reportedly identifies 105 instances of unauthorised cash removal or concealment.
The case has become a political flashpoint ahead of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.
The Supreme Court on Monday took note of the Uttar Pradesh government's submission that a court-mandated Special Investigation Team (SIT) has filed a chargesheet in the Ayodhya Ram temple donations embezzlement case, and disposed of the petitions that had sought an independent probe. Appearing for the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana that donations were embezzled during the counting process.
The case has become a live political issue in Uttar Pradesh ahead of the 2027 Assembly election, with the Samajwadi Party and the Congress both attacking the BJP over it, while the Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust has earlier called such allegations baseless.
What Did The Supreme Court Do On Monday?
The bench took the UP government's statement on record, disposed of the petitions that had sought an independent probe into misappropriation of donations, and said the trial would proceed before the local court in Ayodhya. It permitted the writ petitioners to assist the trial court, and made clear it was not commenting on the merits.
The court also refused to entertain a separate fresh plea seeking a determination of whether the Ram temple stands on land adjudicated in the main Ayodhya dispute case. On September 21 the SIT had told the court it would file its first chargesheet on or before September 25.
What Does The Chargesheet Say?
According to reports on the nearly 70,000-page chargesheet, investigators identified 105 instances of unauthorised removal or concealment of cash from the counting facility by scanning CCTV footage, and corroborated them with digital evidence, witness statements, banking records and a forensic audit. It alleges the money taken during counting was later concealed and distributed.
The document lists 133 witnesses.It also details the alleged influence of Ram Shankar Yadav, alias Tinnu, said to have worked as a driver, who allegedly had access to the donation-counting room and possessed keys to donation boxes, which investigators examined to understand how cash moved from boxes to counting areas.
The Solicitor General's statement in court added that some accused invested in properties while others deposited the money in banks. The SIT's earlier status report put the number of incidents at 105, up from 70 identified in an interim stage, and said eight accused had been identified.
What Did The SIT Find On Valuables?
The SIT's status report told the court that no discrepancies were found in the handling of several high-value items, including silver bricks, and that records for 803 valuable articles were verified and the items found secured in an SBI locker.
The allegations therefore centre on cash offerings during counting rather than on the safekeeping of valuables. The chargesheet reportedly does not name some senior figures who had been the subject of political attacks.
What Is The Samajwadi Party Alleging?
Akhilesh Yadav has pursued the issue for months. On July 9 he called the episode a "Mahapaap" (great sin) in Sanatan Dharma, demanded a complete restructuring of the temple trust and the treasurer's resignation, and sought release of call detail records, claiming they would mostly implicate BJP members. He also alleged that a senior BJP leader had printed fake donation coupons.
In July he said the case exposed a rift between the Centre and the state government, and at a Lucknow press conference he claimed the BJP was trying to suppress the matter and would get "neither donations, nor offerings, nor votes." On August 30 he jibed that anyone committing theft at the Ram Mandir would be inducted into the BJP. SP MPs also protested at Parliament's Makar Dwar over the issue.
What Is The Congress Alleging?
After the Supreme Court closed proceedings on petitons seeking an independent investigation into the issue, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh questioned the delay in filing the chargesheet and demanded an independent forensic audit of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.
The party has also questioned the Prime Minister's silence and demanded a full account of the offerings while alleging a conspiracy being hatched between the PM and the Chief Minister to suppress the case.
How Have The BJP And The Trust Responded?
The Ram Temple Trust has previously described any allegations of institutional wrongdoing as baseless, and reporting from July noted the BJP had given no official response to Akhilesh's attacks. The BJP has generally countered the SP by citing law and order issues under its 2012-2017 rule as well as its alleged opposition to the temple's construction.
The state government's position in court is that the SIT probe found embezzlement during counting and that the matter should now go to trial, framing the case as an act of theft by staff and others rather than institutional wrongdoing. The party itself has long since tried to separate itself from the incident, framing it as actions by independent individuals.
What Happens Next?
The trial in Ayodhya will now test the SIT's evidence, with bail applications of accused such as Tinnu Yadav among early flashpoints. Politically, the SP and Congress are expected to keep pressing for a forensic audit and trust restructuring as the 2027 campaign builds, while the BJP leans on the court-mandated probe and the filing of the chargesheet as proof of accountability.
With the UP Assembly elections fast approaching, the issue is likely to dominate pre poll campaigns as the opposition will try to surround the incumbent government over its failures to prevent the theft.
The BJP on the other hand is likely to keep framing it as an incident separate from the party.
