The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on June 22, 2026, refused to grant out-of-turn urgent hearings to two Public Interest Litigations seeking a CBI probe and CAG audit into alleged misappropriation of donations at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir in Ayodhya.
The vacation bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Bhatia and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, orally remarked that the pleas lacked immediate urgency, according to LiveLaw. The PILs were not dismissed and remain pending before the court.
Background: How We Got Here
The controversy over alleged donation theft at the Ram Mandir surfaced in early June 2026, when a Dainik Jagran report published on June 8, 2026, alleged that donations deposited in the temple’s donation boxes had been embezzled by certain trust employees.
The next day, on June 9, 2026, Mahipal Singh — a former Head of Accounts (Lekha Prabhari) of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, who served from January 2021 to March–April 2022 — gave an interview to a YouTube channel alleging that irregularities in donation handling had been reported to senior functionaries but were not acted upon, as reported by LawBeat.
- On June 13, 2026, the Uttar Pradesh government constituted a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) at the request of the temple trust itself to probe the alleged misappropriation.
- On June 16, 2026, the SIT team entered the Ram Janmabhoomi temple complex and remained there for nearly eight hours during its investigation.
- By June 22, 2026, the SIT was reportedly preparing a 150-page preliminary probe report for submission to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, according to ETV Bharat.
The SIT is headed by Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant. Its other two members are Inspector General of Police (IGP) Kiran S and Special Secretary of the Finance Department, Neel Ratan, as confirmed by LiveLaw and the Deccan Chronicle.
The SIT’s mandate reportedly extends beyond fund embezzlement to cover land purchases by the trust and procurement of building materials. The team was given a seven-day deadline for a preliminary report and a 15-day deadline for the final report.
The Ruling — Key Findings
The vacation bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai declined to grant either PIL an out-of-turn hearing slot on June 22, 2026, finding no grounds for urgency at this stage, per LiveLaw.
The bench’s oral reasoning was direct: “there was no immediate urgency to hear the pleas as the State government had already constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT)” — vacation bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, as reported by LiveLaw.
The first PIL was filed by practising Advocate Mohit Ashok. It seeks an independent, credible, and time-bound CBI investigation into the alleged embezzlement of monetary, gold, and silver donations at the temple, as well as a special forensic audit of the trust’s accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), according to LiveLaw and India Legal Live.
The first PIL also seeks preservation of CCTV footage and financial records, and the formulation of a transparent standard operating procedure for donation management at the temple, as reported by LawBeat.
The petitioner made the Centre, the UP government, the CBI, the CAG, and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust parties to the case, as noted by the Free Press Journal.
A second PIL — filed by a petitioner identified in LiveLaw’s coverage — sought, among other reliefs, the freezing of the trust’s powers and bank accounts pending the conclusion of the SIT probe, and a detailed inquiry into the alleged scam by the trust itself.
Reactions & What’s Next
The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust has denied the allegations of misappropriation, stating all money and valuables are handled through established procedures involving counting, verification, and secure deposit, according to LiveLaw.
The SIT was simultaneously active on the ground as the court hearing took place. The 150-page preliminary report was reportedly being readied for submission to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on the same day — June 22, 2026 — per ETV Bharat.
Both PILs remain pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. No date for regular listing has been confirmed in the available sources. The SIT’s final report, due within 15 days of the team’s constitution on June 13, is expected to shape the trajectory of further judicial scrutiny.
Full coverage: LiveLaw. More legal news at The Courtroom.
Why did the Allahabad High Court refuse urgent hearing on the Ram Mandir donations PILs?
The vacation bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai orally remarked that there was no immediate urgency to hear the pleas, as the Uttar Pradesh government had already constituted a three-member SIT on June 13, 2026, to investigate the alleged misappropriation of donations at the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
What reliefs do the PILs seek regarding Ram Mandir donation embezzlement?
The first PIL by Advocate Mohit Ashok seeks a CBI investigation into alleged embezzlement of cash, gold, and silver donations, a CAG forensic audit of the trust’s accounts, preservation of CCTV footage and financial records, and a transparent standard operating procedure for donation management. The second PIL seeks freezing of the trust’s powers and bank accounts pending the SIT probe’s conclusion.
Who heads the SIT probing the Ram Mandir donation controversy?
The SIT is headed by Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant. The other two members are Inspector General of Police (IGP) Kiran S and Special Secretary of the Finance Department, Neel Ratan. The UP government constituted the SIT on June 13, 2026, at the request of the temple trust itself.
Have the Ram Mandir donation PILs been dismissed by the Allahabad High Court?
No. The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench only declined to grant the PILs an out-of-turn or urgent hearing. Both petitions remain pending before the court and have not been dismissed.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
