Back
Can Public Assist SIT Probe? Supreme Court Allows Suggestions in Ram Mandir Donation Case
In a significant procedural development, the on Monday permitted petitioners and other public-spirited individuals to submit suggestions to the probing the alleged embezzlement of donations collected for the construction of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, directed that such suggestions be routed through the office of Solicitor General , who will forward them to the SIT for objective consideration. The Court also directed the SIT to file a in a , reserving the right to determine whether the report should be disclosed to the parties.
The hearing arose from a batch of petitions seeking a , preferably by the , into allegations that funds donated by millions of devotees across India were misappropriated by the , the body entrusted with overseeing the temple’s construction following the Ayodhya title verdict.
Court Creates Channel for Public Input
Emphasising that the SIT remains accountable to the Court, the Bench crafted a mechanism to allow public participation without compromising the confidentiality of an ongoing investigation. The Court’s order stated:
“We also permit the petitioners or any other public-spirited person to give their suggestions to the office of the learned Solicitor General with respect to the aspects that may be required to be thoroughly investigated by the SIT. The office of the Solicitor General shall forward the suggestions to the SIT. We have no reason to doubt that the same shall be objectively considered.”
The decision reflects a middle path between the petitioners’ demand for full access to investigation material and the State’s concern over sharing sensitive data with strangers to the probe. During arguments, counsel for one petitioner asserted a , arguing that “this petition is filed on behalf of the people of India” and that the petitioners have “a .” Solicitor General opposed the request for unfettered access, submitting that the investigation could not be shared with strangers. The Court’s order avoids opening the investigation file while ensuring that external input can still inform the probe.
SIT Report in
The Bench further directed the SIT, which now includes a forensic auditor to examine the financial trail, to submit a in a . “The SIT, which includes a forensic auditor, will submit its to the Supreme Court in . But its report will be first perused by us and seen if we have to release it to all parties,” the Chief Justice observed. This underscores the Court’s supervisory role, ensuring that the investigation remains under and that any disclosure is made only after the Court satisfies itself of the appropriateness of such release.
The Court also signaled its willingness to strengthen the probe if needed. “If the SIT is doing the job satisfactorily, that’s a different issue. But if you think they are wanting in any manner and qualitative improvement is required, we are open-minded. We can issue additional directions,” the Chief Justice noted, indicating that the door remains open for further judicial intervention.
’s Plea Rejected
In a related development, the Supreme Court declined to entertain, in the present proceedings, an filed by the seeking to convert the Ram Mandir Trust into a public trust. The Akhara had been a key litigant in the original Ayodhya title suit and argued that structural issues with the existing trust could be addressed by treating it as a public trust, which might help resolve some concerns about its functioning.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, however, made clear that the current proceedings are confined to the investigation into alleged . “The present proceedings are concerned with the investigation into the alleged ,” the Chief Justice stated. Solicitor General also submitted that the trust’s status was a separate matter. The Bench permitted the Akhara to file a fresh, independent petition, which would be examined on its own merits. This ruling keeps the focus squarely on the donation theft allegations rather than allowing the proceedings to expand into the trust’s governance structure.
Background: Donation Scam Allegations
The allegations at the heart of the case stem from the nationwide donation drive conducted by the after the Supreme Court’s judgment awarding the disputed site for the construction of the Ram Mandir. The Trust collected contributions from millions of devotees, but reports of soon surfaced, prompting multiple public interest litigations. Petitioners sought a CBI investigation under the Supreme Court’s supervision, arguing that the trust lacked transparency and that the donations were not properly accounted for.
Instead of ordering a CBI probe at this stage, the Court constituted a Special Investigation Team of Uttar Pradesh police officers, later augmented by a forensic auditor to examine the financial trail. Monday’s order refines the supervisory framework by creating a channel for public input while retaining control over the investigation’s material.
Legal Implications: Balancing Transparency and Confidentiality
The Supreme Court’s approach in this case highlights a recurring tension in court-monitored investigations: how to ensure public accountability and access to justice without undermining the integrity of an ongoing probe. By allowing suggestions to be submitted through the Solicitor General’s office, the Court has created a structured process for citizen participation. This could serve as a model for other involving , where affected individuals or organisations seek to contribute relevant information without being given access to the complete investigation file.
For legal practitioners, the order reinforces the principle that courts retain broad discretion to carve out procedural mechanisms tailored to the facts of each case. The emphasis on the SIT’s accountability to the Court rather than to the trust or any other party is a crucial reminder that ensures impartiality. The use of a report also allows the Court to evaluate progress without prematurely exposing sensitive material, a practice that is common in sensitive criminal investigations.
Conclusion
As the SIT continues its probe under the watch of the Supreme Court, the path forward involves a careful balancing act. The public now has a formal avenue to provide input, but the investigation’s findings will remain confidential until the Court decides otherwise. With the Bench expressing openness to issue additional directions if necessary, the legal community will be watching closely for the SIT’s and any further developments. The case, listed under multiple petitions including and , will next be heard after the report is filed. For now, the Supreme Court has made it clear: the investigation belongs to the Court, and it will not be derailed by ancillary disputes.
