Ram temple donation row: Vetting lapses exposed

In the Ayodhya Ram Temple donation scandal, eight people, including a schoolteacher, a former mechanic, and some with family ties to the trust, are accused of stealing cash offerings. 

This case stands out. It reveals that outsourcing agencies, though they promise efficient staffing, often rely on vetting processes that are too basic and inconsistent for high-trust, cash-handling jobs. When low-paid contract workers manage large donations, poor screening can turn cost savings into major risks.

In India, standard vetting for outsourced roles usually falls short for sensitive positions. A process that should have been tightly controlled ended up full of gaps.

Most of the accused were low-paid contract workers hired through Sainik Security Services, an agency based in Varanasi. The company says it sent 22 workers to the State Bank of India’s Ayodhya branch for housekeeping jobs. At some point, several of them were moved to the temple’s donation-counting team. Six out of the eight people arrested came from this group.

Investigators want to know how people earning just Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000 a month could suddenly afford houses worth Rs 65 lakh, farmhouses, and expensive bikes and cars. In India, standard background checks for outsourced staff typically cover identity, address, education, work history, and basic criminal records. 

For jobs involving cash, RBI guidelines say police should verify the last two addresses and update records regularly. But in reality, many agencies and employers skip steps to save time and money.
Instead of ongoing checks, agencies often do just one background check at the start. They also tend to skip extra screenings, such as financial stress tests or integrity checks, for people handling cash. In Ayodhya, these gaps were obvious. Some of the accused reportedly exploited CCTV blind spots and hid money in the washrooms during counting sessions.

One of the accused, a primary school teacher, reportedly explained the method during questioning. Another had family connections to someone in the temple trust. One key person started as a driver for a senior trust official and later got access to the donation room keys. His nephew was also part of the counting team. Police found over ?20 lakh with one accused, and the total amount seized is in crores.

The Contract Labour Act mainly covers wages and welfare benefits. It does not require thorough background checks. That job usually depends on the contract between the main employer, like the temple trust or SBI, and the agency. When these rules are not enforced or are ignored, issues arise.

The SIT is now checking if proper police verification was done and how the hiring process worked. This issue goes beyond just one case. Across India, outsourcing agencies try to keep costs low. Careful screening takes more time and money.

 For short-term or low-level jobs, agencies usually rely on basic Aadhaar checks and self-declared documents. Personal connections and recommendations often outweigh warning signs. After hiring, there is rarely any follow-up to monitor changes in lifestyle or assets.

Jobs that involve handling cash need stronger protections. Good practices include required police checks, financial background checks for anyone dealing with money, regular re-screening, and clear audit trails.

The main employer should carefully review the agency’s vetting records rather than simply accepting certificates. It is also important to have dual-control systems, improved CCTV coverage, and independent audits of donation flows. In a place that relies on public trust and voluntary donations, weak vetting is more than just a paperwork issue.

This kind of failure damages the trust that brings millions of devotees to Ayodhya. The temple trust and its banking partners handed over a critical job without making sure strong safeguards were in place. The result is an alleged inside job that now affects one of India’s most respected sites. 

These arrests are a warning. Unless outsourcing agencies and the organisations that hire them treat background checks as essential, not just paperwork, similar problems will keep happening wherever cash is handled with little oversight. Faith deserves better protection.