Ram Temple Donation Theft: Accused Appointed Via Recommendations, SIT Finds

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) has found that all six accused allegedly involved in the Ram Temple donation theft case were appointed to the donation-counting system through recommendations from Trust-linked functionaries, despite detailed safeguards designed to ensure transparency in the handling of devotees’ offerings.

In its preliminary report, the SIT identified Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey and Ramashankar Mishra as members of the counting staff engaged through State Bank of India’s outsourced agency, Sainik Security Services (SSS).

Investigators said their induction was based on recommendations from Trust officials, contrary to the spirit of operational guidelines framed jointly by the Trust and SBI.

The report specifically highlights the appointment of Manish Kumar Yadav, stating that he was recommended by his uncle, Ramashankar Yadav alias Tinnu, who allegedly wielded considerable influence over the donation-counting process.

According to the SIT, Tinnu instructed Manish to submit contractual documents to SBI employee Ratnesh Chaturvedi, after which he joined the counting room on April 15, 2026.

CCTV footage from May 11 onwards allegedly captured Manish repeatedly stealing donation money.

The SIT said the case was not the result of an absence of procedures but a failure to enforce them.

A detailed framework governing the collection, counting and banking of donations already existed between the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust and SBI through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), as well as Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Minutes of Meeting signed on Sept 20, 2024, and Feb 6, 2025, by then SBI Ayodhya branch manager Govind Mishra and Trust representative Dr Anil Mishra.

Investigators noted that these documents had already identified vulnerabilities in the donation-counting system and laid down specific safeguards.

Under the SOPs, hundis were to be opened only in the presence of authorised Trust and bank representatives, cash was to be counted separately for each donation box, biometric attendance maintained, uniforms enforced, personal belongings barred inside the counting room, and mandatory frisking conducted at entry and exit.

CCTV monitoring, daily reporting and regular record updates were also prescribed.

However, the SIT found that many of these safeguards were either ignored or poorly enforced.

It noted that routine and surprise frisking of counting personnel—specifically mandated under the February 2025 SOP—was not carried out, despite responsibility for maintaining transparency resting with the Trust.

The investigation said these failures went beyond procedural lapses and amounted to gross negligence that allegedly enabled theft and misappropriation of donations.

According to the report, investigators recovered Rs 79 lakh in cash, foreign currency and jewellery from the accused.

Another Rs 2.25 lakh was recovered from a bathroom adjoining the counting room, indicating efforts to conceal stolen money within the temple premises.

Financial scrutiny also revealed transactions allegedly disproportionate to the known income of the accused.

While counting personnel earned take-home salary of about Rs 15,000 after deductions, investigators found substantial cash deposits, fixed deposits and other financial transactions in their accounts.

The SIT said the financial trail, viewed alongside CCTV footage and recovery records, suggested that embezzled donation money was allegedly concealed or routed through accounts belonging to the accused and their relatives.

The report concludes that the safeguards necessary to prevent such thefts were already in place on paper, but their alleged non-implementation created conditions that allowed the wrongdoing to continue undetected.