New Delhi: Amidst the ongoing controversy following reports of the alleged theft of offerings at Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir last month, the Uttar Pradesh government’s home department constituted a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the allegations.

The SIT was constituted at the behest of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. In a letter to the government dated June 12, the Trust stated that media and social media reports concerning the management and misappropriation of temple offerings were creating doubts among devotees and therefore an independent investigation into the entire matter was necessary.

Consequently, the home department of the Uttar Pradesh government constituted the SIT on June 17. The team was tasked with investigating the entire incident to ascertain how the theft occurred, identify the individuals accountable and recommend necessary reforms to avert such incidents in the future.

Following an investigation that lasted just six days, the SIT presented its nine-page interim report to the additional chief secretary (home) on June 23.

However, this interim report raises more questions than it answers. It states that the individuals responsible for oversight failed to ensure proper adherence to security protocols.

At the very outset, the SIT observes that, prima facie, it appears certain employees responsible for counting the donations were involved in the theft and embezzlement of cash.

CCTV footage captured 70 instances of theft within a span of 40 days. The interim report further acknowledges that there had been serious lapses in the management of offerings and security arrangements for years – concerns that have been repeatedly highlighted by internal audits but have not been effectively addressed.

The SIT has recommended that an FIR be filed against six individuals: Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey and Ramashankar Mishra. However, the report makes no mention of the Trust’s then-general secretary and Vishva Hindu Parishad leader, Champat Rai.

While the SIT has noted the supervisory failures of senior Trust office-bearer Anil Mishra and the official in charge of counting, Subhash Srivastava, it has not reached a definitive conclusion regarding the role of the top decision-making body or other senior office-bearers.

Moreover, the report fails to answer several major questions, such as the total amount of funds embezzled and where the ultimate responsibility lies for the institutional failures that persisted over the years.

How are offerings made at the temple?

According to the report, devotees present their offerings at the Ram Temple through three primary channels:

First, by depositing cash, coins, gold, silver and other valuables into the hundis, or donation boxes, installed within the temple premises.

Second, by depositing them directly at counters designated by the Trust.

And third, by placing offerings at the feet of Ram Lalla near the sanctum sanctorum.

It has been reported that the cash and valuables collected through these channels were taken to a counting room, where they were tallied with the help of the State Bank of India (SBI).

A detailed standard operating procedure (SOP) was established between the Trust and the bank for this purpose. This procedure mandated that donation boxes be opened in the joint presence of Trust and bank representatives; separate records be maintained for each box; staff undergo searches upon entry and exit; counting staff wear special clothing without pockets; personal belongings be prohibited inside the counting room; biometric attendance be recorded for every employee; and the entire process be conducted under CCTV surveillance.

On paper, the system appeared extremely robust. However, the SIT investigation revealed that, in practice, these rules were not followed at all.

This is where the serious irregularities began.

Shortcomings in management of cash

The SIT asserts that in order to comprehend the incidents of theft, it is crucial to understand the functioning of the entire system that manages offerings.

According to the report, the primary and most serious flaw was that cash retrieved from various hundis was commingled before the counting process even commenced. Whereas the prescribed procedure mandated that the contents of each hundi be counted and recorded separately.

As a direct consequence, it became nearly impossible to ascertain later exactly how much money had been collected in a specific hundi on any given day. The SIT has identified this as a serious institutional flaw regarding accountability and transparency.

Shortcomings in management of valuables

The SIT’s investigation reveals that the issue extended beyond cash. There were serious procedural deficiencies in the management of gold, silver and other valuables too.........

© The Wire