The report, submitted by Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, is based on documents, statements and material examined during the inquiry so far. Officials said the contents remain confidential as the investigation is continuing and further evidence is being gathered. The team is expected to submit a final report after completing the remaining verification.
The SIT was constituted on June 13 after the Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust sought an impartial inquiry into allegations involving donations received at the temple. The panel is headed by Pant and includes Lucknow Range Inspector General Kiran S and Neelratan Kumar, Special Secretary in the Finance Department. The government had asked the team to submit a preliminary report within seven days and a final report within 15 days.
The inquiry centres on allegations that offerings placed in donation boxes and other valuables given by devotees were mishandled, diverted or inadequately recorded. Investigators have examined records linked to the counting of donations, bank documentation, internal procedures, staffing arrangements and surveillance material. Employees and functionaries connected with temple operations have been questioned as part of the evidence-gathering process.
Officials familiar with the inquiry said the SIT has looked at the role of staff involved in collection, counting and record-keeping, as well as the procedures followed after donation boxes were opened. The team has also reviewed whether safeguards were adequate for cash, coins, ornaments and precious-metal offerings. The probe has widened to include questions over internal controls, appointment practices and supervisory accountability within the trust-linked management system.
The case gathered momentum after allegations surfaced that cash and valuables offered by devotees had not been properly accounted for. Police and administrative authorities were drawn into the matter after pressure mounted for a formal investigation. The trust has maintained that it sought the probe to establish facts and counter claims that could damage public confidence in the temple’s management.
The Ram Mandir, consecrated in January 2024, receives large numbers of devotees from across the country and abroad. The scale of offerings has placed its financial management under close public scrutiny, especially because the temple was built after a decades-long political, legal and religious movement. Allegations concerning donations have therefore carried significance beyond routine financial irregularity, touching issues of faith, governance and institutional credibility.
The SIT’s initial findings are understood to have flagged the need for stronger systems to handle temple offerings, including clearer documentation, tighter access control, better audit trails and more transparent procedures for counting and depositing donations. Any recommendation for criminal action would depend on whether investigators establish individual culpability, documentary proof and recoverable evidence.
The political response has been sharp. Opposition leaders have demanded accountability from the trust and the state government, arguing that donations made by devotees must be protected through verifiable systems. The government has said the investigation will proceed on facts and that action will follow if wrongdoing is established. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has publicly urged patience, saying the truth would emerge through the inquiry.
Temple construction committee chairperson Nripendra Mishra has indicated that the investigation involves both criminal responsibility and future reform. That framing has widened the issue from possible theft or misappropriation to the broader question of how one of the country’s most closely watched religious institutions should handle large volumes of cash and valuables.
The inquiry also comes amid complaints filed at the Ram Janmbhoomi police station by individuals and political representatives alleging misappropriation of temple funds. Some complaints have named trust functionaries, while others have questioned broader financial decisions and record-keeping. As of the early stages of the probe, investigators were still assessing the evidence needed for formal criminal proceedings.
