The Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) preliminary probe into the alleged theft of cash offering at the Ram temple has put senior Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust office-bearer Dr Anil Mishra under the scanner, holding him responsible for supervisory failures that allegedly allowed repeated theft of devotees’ cash donations despite his knowledge that mandatory security checks were not being enforced.
The three-member SIT, in its report submitted to the Uttar Pradesh government on June 23, attributed supervisory accountability to Dr Mishra, saying his failure to ensure enforcement of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) created conditions that allegedly enabled repeated theft and criminal misappropriation inside the temple’s donation-counting room.
Dr Mishra’s resignation from the trust was accepted at its meeting held in Ayodhya on Monday, days after the SIT submitted its report.
The report formed the basis for registration of an FIR, following which eight persons have been arrested. While six counting personnel have been identified as directly involved in the alleged theft of cash donations, the SIT separately examined the role of senior trust functionaries responsible for supervising the entire counting process.
According to the report, Dr Mishra was one of the trust representatives entrusted with overseeing financial management and donation-counting operations. He jointly prepared and signed the detailed cash-handling SOP with the then State Bank of India (SBI), Ayodhya branch manager Govind Mishra after the trust and the bank executed an MoU governing management of temple donations.
The SOP, finalised on February 6, 2025, prescribed an elaborate security architecture to prevent theft. Among its most critical safeguards was compulsory frisking of every person entering and leaving the counting room. The protocol also mandated biometric attendance, pocketless uniforms, prohibition on carrying personal belongings, denomination-wise documentation, donation box-wise counting, machine counting, CCTV monitoring and daily reporting.
According to the SIT, responsibility for ensuring transparency and integrity of the counting process rested with the trust. The investigation says that despite being one of the principal architects of the SOP, Dr Mishra failed to ensure the safeguards were implemented on the ground. The report identifies the failure to enforce frisking as one of the gravest lapses.
According to the SIT, Dr Mishra had received information through internal channels that mandatory frisking of counting personnel while entering and exiting the counting room was not being carried out. Despite being aware of the violation, investigators say he did not issue any effective written directions to ensure compliance with the mandatory security measure.
The SIT further alleges that no meaningful corrective intervention followed even though other key safeguards—including biometric attendance, compulsory uniforms, restrictions on personal belongings inside the counting room, denomination-wise accounting and daily reporting—were also allegedly not being enforced.
Investigators also questioned a significant change introduced in the February 6, 2025 SOP.
The report notes that while the earlier system required compulsory frisking of every individual entering or exiting the counting room, the revised SOP diluted the provision by replacing mandatory checks with “regular/random” frisking. The SIT held Dr Mishra responsible for this relaxation, adding that even the diluted provision was not implemented in practice.
“It was his responsibility to ensure continuous monitoring of the SOP issued under his supervision,” the report says in substance, concluding that the absence of sustained supervision and corrective action allowed repeated violations of prescribed safeguards.
The SIT further observes that as the trust’s representative in drafting the SOP with SBI, Dr Mishra was expected to continuously verify whether every approved safeguard was being followed. Instead, it alleges that supervisory oversight remained ineffective despite knowledge of repeated procedural violations.
The report also scrutinises appointments made for the sensitive cash-counting exercise.
According to the SIT, Subhash Srivastava was appointed counting in-charge on Dr Mishra’s recommendation. Investigators say Srivastava was responsible for enforcing frisking, maintaining discipline and ensuring compliance with all security protocols inside the counting room. However, the SIT identifies his failure to ensure mandatory frisking as the most serious operational lapse despite repeated thefts allegedly taking place.
The investigation further alleges that Ramshankar Yadav alias Tinnu facilitated the appointment of his relative Manish Kumar Yadav as a counting worker through SBI employee Ratnesh Chaturvedi. CCTV footage allegedly captured Manish concealing or removing donation cash from May 11, 2026, onwards.
According to the SIT, all six persons identified as prima facie involved in allegedly stealing cash were deployed through SBI’s contractual agency, Sainik Security Services, on the recommendations of Trust office-bearers, a practice the investigators say ran contrary to the spirit of the SOP.
The report also states that internal audit reports from 2022-23 to 2025-26 had repeatedly flagged weaknesses in donation management, including poor documentation, inadequate CCTV coverage during transfer of donations, failure to issue receipts for donated articles and inadequate preservation of CCTV footage. Despite repeated audit observations, the deficiencies allegedly remained unaddressed.
Investigators say CCTV footage examined during the probe captured nearly 70 instances in which counting personnel allegedly concealed or removed bundles of currency or loose cash. The SIT concludes that these repeated acts became possible because mandatory safeguards—including frisking—remained largely confined to written procedures and were not effectively enforced.
While recommending criminal proceedings against the six persons allegedly seen handling and concealing cash, the SIT clarifies that its findings against Dr Anil Mishra relate to supervisory accountability and his alleged failure to ensure implementation of mandatory security protocols. It emphasises that the findings are part of a preliminary investigation and that questions relating to institutional, administrative and supervisory responsibility will be examined further in the final report.
www.hindustantimes.com
#Ram #Temple #donation #row #SIT #puts #Anil #Mishra #lens #knew #frisking #norms #werent #enforced
