105 CCTV instances and a September 25 deadline, inside the Ram Temple donation case

The Ayodhya Ram temple donation case has reached a crucial legal point. Three of the eight accused have been denied bail, the Supreme Court has examined an SIT status report recording 105 alleged instances of unauthorised currency removal, and the Uttar Pradesh government has told the Court that the first chargesheet will be filed by September 25. That date is significant: the 90-day statutory period from the first arrest expires then, potentially opening the door to default bail if the chargesheet is not filed in time.

What happened?

The case concerns alleged embezzlement of cash and valuables donated at the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Eight people were arrested after an FIR was registered on June 25 following a preliminary SIT investigation. Most of the accused were bank employees deployed for counting donations. Another accused, Subhash Srivastava, was associated with the donation-counting process, while Ramashankar alias Tinnu Yadav worked as a driver and was described as a close associate of former Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust general secretary Champat Rai. Investigators have so far recovered Rs.79.85 lakh, according to the prosecution.

On September 21, an Ayodhya Anti-Corruption Court rejected the bail pleas of Avinash Shukla, Manish Kumar Yadav and Ram Shankar Mishra. Their lawyer argued that provisions relating to corruption and criminal breach of trust by a public servant were inapplicable because the accused were not government employees. The court rejected the applications. Bail pleas of the remaining accused were scheduled for subsequent hearings.

Why is September 25 important?

Because the investigation now faces a statutory clock.

The Supreme Court was told on September 21 that 90 days from the first arrest would expire on September 25. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the SIT would file its first chargesheet by then. Under the statutory framework governing investigation custody, failure to file the chargesheet within the prescribed period can give an accused a right to default or statutory bail, subject to the applicable legal conditions.

The chargesheet deadline therefore matters independently of the merits of the allegations. A bail entitlement arising from an investigation deadline is not a finding that the accused are innocent, just as the rejection of bail is not a finding of guilt.

What has the SIT found?

This is where the investigation has widened.

According to the SIT status report placed before the Supreme Court, CCTV footage from the donation-counting room at the Pilgrim Facility Centre, along with other digital evidence, revealed 105 instances of alleged unauthorised currency removal or concealment. The report says the incidents involved assistance from other people participating in the counting process. It identifies eight accused and includes unexplained deposits and information on assets allegedly linked to them.

The number is significant because an earlier preliminary investigation had reported 70 such instances. The latest figure, however, remains an investigative finding and not a judicial determination of 105 proven thefts.

The SIT has also recorded statements from 173 witnesses as of September 14, including trust officials, accounting personnel, bank officials, security personnel and chartered accountants. Its investigation covers electronic evidence, financial transactions, property, donation records and the tracing of suspected proceeds.

But what about the valuable donations?

This is an important counterpoint often lost in the broader theft narrative.

The SIT told the Supreme Court that it found no discrepancies in its verification of several high-value donations, including 200 kg of silver bricks, another 38.288 kg of silver bricks, a silver necklace, Charan Paduka and a Ramcharitmanas-related donation. Records for 803 valuable articles were verified and those articles were found stored in an SBI locker. Another 86 articles without receipts were separately identified and physically verified.

The status report also examined records concerning approximately 944.411 kg of white metal described as supposed to be silver and sent by the Trust to the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India for melting.

So the investigation is not establishing that every allegation surrounding temple donations was substantiated. It is narrowing down specific suspected currency-removal incidents while separately reporting no discrepancies in the handling of certain valuable donations.

Why is the Supreme Court involved?

The Supreme Court ordered the present SIT after petitions sought an independent investigation. It also directed the inclusion of a forensic auditor and asked the investigation to proceed expeditiously and reach a logical conclusion. The Court has separately raised questions about transparency in the management and maintenance of temple donations.

Crucially, the Court has stressed that the SIT is not under the temple Trust but is constituted by, and accountable to, the Court.

That makes institutional accountability central to the case.

What happens next?

The immediate test is September 25: whether the SIT files its first chargesheet within the statutory period and what evidence it places before the trial court.

The Congress has meanwhile attacked the delay and questioned whether senior figures or alleged 'big fish' are being shielded. Those are political allegations, not findings established by the investigation or the courts. Congress has also demanded a forensic audit and greater transparency.

The case now turns on three separate questions: what the investigation can prove, whether the chargesheet meets the September 25 deadline, and whether the eventual judicial process establishes individual criminal liability.

For a case involving donations made in the name of one of India’s most politically and religiously significant institutions, the issue is therefore no longer simply the alleged disappearance of cash. It is whether the investigation can establish a transparent chain from the counting room, through the financial trail, to individual responsibility — and whether the institutions overseeing the donations can demonstrate that accountability in court.