Ram Temple Case 70 Thefts Cctv Gaps Flawed Counting 5 Key Findings

70 incidents of thefts identified, frisking protocol ignored, counting lapses found: In its nine-page preliminary report, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing alleged donation theft at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has flagged a series of systemic failures in supervision, CCTV monitoring, and cash-counting procedures.

The SIT found that several personnel involved in the counting process failed to comply with prescribed security protocols. It flagged serious supervisory failures that, it said, created conditions conducive to the alleged criminal acts.

The probe team raised serious concerns over individuals controlling the keys of donation boxes or managing access-related arrangements without any clear written authorisation, including accused Ramshankar Yadav alias Tinnu, who is known to be close to Champat Rai, who resigned as general secretary of the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra.

The report also held accused Subhash Srivastava, the counting in-charge and officer supervising the opening of the boxes arrested in the case, responsible for permitting this informal arrangement to continue.

The report identified major weaknesses in CCTV surveillance and record retention. While cameras were installed in the counting room, Trust personnel allegedly failed to monitor live footage effectively.

Recordings were preserved for only 45 days — from April 27 to June 6 — despite earlier audit recommendations that footage be retained for 180 days. During this limited period, investigators identified 70 instances of alleged theft or embezzlement.

The SIT said the alleged pilferage may have begun even before April 27, but the absence of earlier footage made it impossible to establish the extent of any prior theft.

Available footage, it said, repeatedly showed some employees engaged in counting concealing bundles of currency notes and loose cash inside their clothes, pockets, shoes, or other hidden locations. In several instances, other employees appeared to assist or provide cover, the report noted.

A series of security failures allowed the alleged thefts to go undetected, it said.

-Staff were not adequately frisked while entering or leaving the counting room

-The prescribed dress code was not strictly enforced

-Personal belongings were not effectively barred

-Donations were not counted separately for each hundi

-Denomination-wise records were not properly maintained.

The SIT also pointed to poor oversight, noting that these lapses continued despite representatives of both the Trust and the bank being present during the counting exercise.

It also raised concerns over changes to frisking norms. Under an arrangement introduced in September 2024, all personnel entering or exiting the counting room were subject to security checks. However, a Standard Operating Procedure issued on February 6, 2025, diluted this requirement, allowing checks only at regular intervals or on a random basis.

The SIT said the circumstances in which the rule was changed warranted closer examination, especially since even these limited checks were allegedly not carried out.

It said ex-trustee Anil Mishra, who represented the Trust while framing both the September 2024 arrangement and the February 2025 SOP with the bank, was expected to ensure that safeguards were enforced. The report noted that little evidence of sustained oversight, regular review, or effective supervision was found.

The SIT also found widespread violations of prescribed procedures for handling cash and valuables across all three modes of offerings (hundis, counters, sanctum), including poor documentation, mixing of offerings, and weak chain-of-custody controls.

During the investigation, the report noted, it was found that serious deficiencies existed at the very initial stage of this process. Although a system of box-wise recording and counting had been prescribed, in practice, the contents of different hundis were mixed together before counting.

There was no system for numbering and tracking the boxes used for cash transportation to ensure which boxes had come from which hundi on which day, how many had been counted, and how many remained.

In view of the large quantity of public offerings received, this situation constituted a serious weakness from the perspective of audit and accountability, it said.

Bhupendra Pandey is the Resident Editor of the Lucknow edition of The Indian Express. With decades of experience in the heart of Uttar Pradesh’s journalistic landscape, he oversees the bureau’s coverage of India’s most politically significant state. His expertise lies in navigating the complex intersections of state governance, legislative policy, and grassroots social movements. From tracking high-stakes assembly elections to analyzing administrative shifts in the Hindi heartland, Bhupendra’s reportage provides a definitive lens on the region's evolution. Authoritativeness He leads a team of seasoned reporters and investigators, ensuring that The Indian Express’ signature "Journalism of Courage" is reflected in every regional story. His leadership is central to the Lucknow bureau’s reputation for breaking stories that hold the powerful to account, making him a trusted figure for policy analysts, political scholars, and the general public seeking to understand the nuances of UP’s complex landscape. Trustworthiness & Accountability Under his stewardship, the Lucknow edition adheres to the strictest standards of factual verification and non-partisan reporting. He serves as a bridge between the local populace and the national discourse, ensuring that regional issues are elevated with accuracy and context. By prioritizing primary-source reporting and on-the-ground verification, he upholds the trust that readers have placed in the Express brand for nearly a century. ... Read More