The Ram Temple donation theft case is set to enter a sharper legal phase on Thursday as a group of Ayodhya lawyers prepares to seek registration of an FIR against Champat Rai, the former general secretary of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, over alleged irregularities in the handling of offerings.
The proposed complaint comes as the Special Investigation Team probing suspected embezzlement at the temple has been given 15 more days to expand its inquiry. Rai, who resigned from the post of general secretary on June 27, has already been questioned by investigators and has denied wrongdoing. Trust member Anil Mishra, who also stepped down, has faced similar scrutiny.
The lawyers are expected to argue that the existing investigation should not remain confined to lower-level staff and security personnel. Their complaint is likely to press for a wider examination of supervisory responsibility, cash-handling protocols, CCTV coverage, custody of donation boxes and the decision-making chain within the trust administration.
The case has gathered political and public attention because the temple in Ayodhya is among the most closely watched religious institutions in the country. Donations are made by devotees through cash boxes, counters and digital channels, making the integrity of the collection and deposit process central to public confidence.
Police have already registered a case against eight people, including personnel linked to cash-counting and security arrangements. Six of those under scrutiny were associated with a private security agency that has denied institutional responsibility, saying its staff had been deployed at the request of a bank and that the company had no role in any alleged theft.
Investigators are examining a cash trail of more than ₹77 lakh. Avinash Shukla, one of the accused, has emerged as a key figure in the probe, with recoveries linked to him reported at more than ₹20 lakh. Searches have also led to the recovery of cash, valuables and foreign currency as investigators attempt to establish whether the theft involved an organised network rather than isolated acts.
The suspected modus operandi has raised questions about internal controls at the temple complex. Interrogation of accused persons has pointed to the alleged use of washrooms and CCTV blind spots to conceal stolen cash before moving it out in smaller quantities. Police are also examining whether donation boxes linked to QR codes were manipulated or diverted.
Rai has told investigators that he became aware of suspected theft at the end of May and initiated an internal inquiry. His position is that he acted after receiving information about irregularities and did not take part in any wrongdoing. Investigators have questioned him about the system for receiving donations, counting cash, storing collections and transferring money to bank accounts.
The trust has sought to reassure devotees that donations are safe and that it is committed to a fair investigation. The resignations of Rai and Mishra were presented as steps intended to prevent any perception of interference while the probe continues. The trust’s forthcoming meeting is expected to discuss administrative changes, accountability measures and the future role of those who held charge when the alleged theft took place.
The widening controversy has also triggered a political exchange. Opposition leaders have accused the temple administration and its backers of failing to protect offerings made by devotees. The criticism has placed pressure on the trust and the Uttar Pradesh administration to demonstrate that the investigation will not stop at junior staff.
At the heart of the dispute is the governance model of a high-profile religious trust handling large volumes of public donations. Major temples typically rely on layered controls, including monitored donation boxes, sealed transport, independent counting, bank-linked verification and audit trails. The Ayodhya case has exposed apparent gaps in surveillance, custody and escalation procedures.
The planned legal move by Ayodhya lawyers could test whether police expand the FIR to include those accused of administrative negligence or alleged concealment. A complaint against Rai would not automatically establish criminal liability, but it would intensify demands for investigators to examine whether senior functionaries had knowledge of lapses and whether action was delayed.
