During the hearing on Monday, the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, observed that the issue concerning the alleged theft of donations meant for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir should not be politicised. He described the matter as a simple case of commission of an offence and cautioned the parties involved to refrain from giving it a political colour. The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, indicated that it would issue certain directions after reviewing a status report filed by the Uttar Pradesh government.

Earlier, the Court had issued notice on the petitions seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation probe and had directed the Special Investigation Team constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government to file a status report on the progress of the inquiry. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, informed the Court that the investigation into the allegations of embezzlement was being conducted by the state police and that, in compliance with the Court’s order, a status report had been submitted. According to the report, eight persons have been arrested so far. The Solicitor General added that the police have found that a cognizable offence is made out, but he refrained from divulging further details as the investigation is ongoing.

The Chief Justice stated that the bench would like to examine the submitted report before passing any order. He also mentioned that the Solicitor General may take instructions regarding the reconstitution of the Special Investigation Team, if necessary. Emphasising the importance of credibility, the CJI underscored that the investigation must be fair, transparent and taken to a logical conclusion.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for some of the petitioners, highlighted a broader issue concerning the alleged disappearance of gold and silver articles and the non‑accounting of donations received by the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. He suggested that the receipts issued at the time of donation, when the temple was under construction, could be disclosed on a website so that devotees could verify whether their contributions reached the trust. The Chief Justice did not favour the idea of publishing the receipts on a website, but he agreed that some form of record must be maintained wherever a receipt is given. He cautioned that false claims about donations could arise, making a public disclosure impractical.

When the question of preserving digital evidence such as CCTV footage was raised, the Solicitor General assured the Court that such material was being preserved. Another counsel questioned the necessity of multiple parties approaching the Court on the same matter, while a different advocate urged that the First Information Report filed by the state police be uploaded on a website and that the status report be shared with the petitioners. The bench, however, did not pass any order to that effect during the hearing.

One of the petitions was filed by Narendra Kumar Goswami, who is appearing in person, seeking a CBI investigation and an audit of the trust’s finances by the Comptroller and Auditor General. A second petition, filed by Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, also in person, seeks similar directions for a CBI probe and asks the Union and Uttar Pradesh governments, together with the trust, to take measures to safeguard the interests of devotees and donors. The petitioners note that, irrespective of whether the allegations are ultimately substantiated, the reports have caused widespread concern among those who contributed to the Ram Mandir movement. A third petition was moved by RJD MP Sudhakar Singh, who seeks a forensic audit of the entire financial records of the temple trust, including physical documents, digital ledgers, UPI transaction logs and bank statements, to prevent any alleged tampering with evidence. The petition also requests a direction restraining the trust from undertaking major investments, entering into substantial contracts or taking significant financial decisions without the prior approval of an oversight committee proposed by the petitioner.

The matter remains pending as the Court continues to examine the status report filed by the Uttar Pradesh government. No final order has been passed at this stage, and the bench has refrained from making any substantive findings on the merits of the allegations.