The Supreme Court on Monday refused to urgently hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)-led multi-disciplinary Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the alleged embezzlement of funds of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. A bench led by Justice MM Sundresh, also comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, told the petitioners that “heavens are not going to fall if the petition is heard after the court resumes regular functioning after the summer break.” The bench questioned the urgency, stating, “What’s the urgency?”
Petition Filed by Advocates
The controversy reached the Supreme Court on June 22 when advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav filed a petition seeking registration of an FIR and a fair, time-bound probe by a CBI-led multi-disciplinary SIT. The petitioners sought investigation into alleged financial irregularities and other purported “illegalities” concerning the affairs and administration of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, which manages the temple construction.
UP Government’s SIT and Preliminary Report
On June 13, the Uttar Pradesh government had set up a three-member SIT at the request of the temple trust to probe allegations of financial irregularities and misappropriation of donations. The SIT comprised Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, Inspector General of Police Kiran S, and Finance Department Special Secretary Neel Ratan. It submitted its preliminary report to the state government on June 23, following which an FIR was registered and eight accused were arrested.
Petitioners’ Demand for Independent Probe
However, the petitioners argued that the state-appointed SIT lacked specialized criminal investigation expertise, as it consisted of administrative officers. They submitted that the reports of missing funds and other irregularities have caused “deep concern among the generations that struggled for the restoration of the glory of Ayodhya.” They emphasized that such reports should be independently verified by a single agency equipped with the expertise, resources, and institutional framework required for complex financial and criminal probes. The petitioners stated, “Such an inquiry would inspire greater public confidence than a preliminary probe conducted by a special investigation team (SIT) comprising administrative officers who may not possess specialized credentials in criminal investigation.” They added that the allegations go beyond possible cognisable offences and directly impact the faith, sentiments, and trust of countless devotees.
Court’s Decision and Next Steps
The Supreme Court bench declined to grant an urgent hearing, meaning the petition will be taken up after the summer break when the court resumes regular functioning. The petitioners now await the court’s listing of the matter for a regular hearing, likely in July 2026.
