SIT flags lapses in cash handling in Ram Mandir

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating reports of theft and misuse of donations at Ayodhya’s Ram Mandir has found serious problems in the management of donations.

The three-member team, formed on June 13, 2026, at the trust’s request, reviewed records and CCTV footage and interviewed more than 100 people. It found carelessness in cash counting, surveillance, hiring, and handling of valuables. The SIT is considering further steps, including possible FIRs against those involved in carelessness or wrongdoing.

The process of counting cash donations begins by emptying 35 donation boxes around the temple. The collections are then moved in locked iron containers to the counting room at the Pilgrim Facilitation Centre. The SIT found carelessness in this process. Most cash was handled by SBI staff, often hired through a private security agency in Varanasi and selected on recommendations from people connected to the Ram Temple Trust. This weakened oversight.

The SIT has found that workers were not properly checked or frisked at the start or end of their shifts, and there was no strong system to check what they carried. The required dress code was not enforced.

Counting staff often worked in their regular clothes rather than the uniforms provided to them. Controls were weak as funds moved from the donation boxes to the counting hall and then to sealed bank deposits.

These gaps may have allowed money to be diverted. For example, Anukul Mishra, who is connected to the trust, helped his brother-in-law, Lavkush Mishra, get a cash-counting job. This indicates the risk of favouritism and weak independent checks.

Surveillance was meant to safeguard cash handling, but the SIT found employees blocked the cameras during cash handling. Investigators reviewed extensive footage and identified these instances.

There are strong signs that recordings in the cash-counting area were tampered with, including possible deletions or changes. This made it difficult to understand what happened fully. Older CCTV footage was also limited, with only about 45 days readily available in some reports, making it harder to examine longer-term trends.

The SIT found serious problems with active monitoring, which was meant to oversee the counting and movement of offerings. These failures made the process less transparent and allowed possible issues to go unnoticed or be hard to trace.

Many cash-handling jobs were awarded based on informal recommendations from people connected to the trust rather than through a clear and fair selection process. This raised concerns about accountability, especially among lower-paid counting staff and supervisors.

The investigation also found problems with non-cash donations. Trust officials struggled to provide clear answers on how they documented, stored, and tracked gold and silver ornaments, precious stones, jewellery, and other valuables donated by devotees. Differences in records raised concerns about possible theft or swapping real items for fake ones.

The SIT is also looking into the increase in donations during the busy Maha Kumbh period in January and February 2025. It is reviewing how the trust bought land and materials. Other areas are being checked for similar problems, such as weak controls or irregularities. Cash handling was given to outside staff with weak checks. CCTV cameras were installed, but they could be tampered with and were not always monitored. Hiring often depended on personal connections instead of strict checks.

The total financial impact remains unclear, as public claims cite different amounts. The SIT has recommended major changes: use only regular bank staff for counting, make hiring more transparent, improve CCTV rules and storage practices, hold regular independent audits, and increase supervision, possibly with additional professional or government oversight. These steps aim to prevent similar lapses and strengthen accountability at the trust.

The SIT is still working on the case and giving updates to the Chief Minister’s Office. Its early findings show how a major religious site can fail without strict and independent enforcement.