The Supreme Court of India on June 29, 2025, declined to grant urgent listing to a PIL seeking constitution of a CBI-led Special Investigation Team to probe alleged embezzlement of donations at the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust in Ayodhya.
The vacation bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu questioned the urgency of the matter and directed that it be listed immediately after the court reopens following its summer vacation, according to LiveLaw.
Background & Case History
The PIL arises from a widening controversy over alleged financial irregularities and misappropriation of donations collected at the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. The Uttar Pradesh Police registered an FIR and arrested eight persons in connection with the alleged embezzlement.
Those arrested include Tinnu Yadav, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Avinash Shukla, Manish Yadav, Subhash Srivastava, Karunesh Pandey, and Ramshankar Mishra — among them the cash-counting in-charge at the temple’s pilgrim facilitation centre, as reported by LawBeat. The accused were booked under charges of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The statement of former Trust general secretary Champat Rai was also recorded by police as part of the ongoing investigation, according to multiple reports.
- June 13, 2025: The Uttar Pradesh government constituted a state SIT comprising Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, IG Kiran S, and Finance Department Special Secretary Neel Ratan to probe the allegations.
- Around June 23, 2025: A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi directed the petitioners to mention the matter on June 29 for listing purposes, per LawBeat.
- June 29, 2025: Vacation bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu declined urgent listing and directed the matter be heard after the court’s summer recess.
- Separately, the Allahabad High Court also refused an out-of-turn hearing on a related plea, observing no urgency in the matter, according to Verdictum.
Arguments & Submissions
The PIL was filed by Advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, with the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the Union of India named as respondents. Petitioner Ajay Kumar Rai appeared in person, while Advocate NK Goswami also mentioned the matter on behalf of the petitioners, as reported by Bar & Bench.
Petitioners contended that electronic evidence — including CCTV footage, digital payment logs, donation registers, and bank records — was at serious risk of tampering if the matter was deferred. Advocate NK Goswami submitted to the bench: “Electronic evidence etc may be tampered.”
Counsel for the petitioners further argued before the court: “Allegations are very serious…the way State is dealing casts doubts.” The petitioners pressed for a CBI-led independent SIT, arguing the state SIT lacked sufficient forensic and financial expertise and had commenced inquiry without a prior FIR.
The petition drew a parallel with the Supreme Court’s October 2024 order in Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh — the Tirupati adulterated ghee case — where the court substituted a state SIT with a CBI-led independent SIT, citing that precedent as justification for similar relief here, according to Bar & Bench.
The Ruling: Key Findings
The vacation bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu, declined to grant the urgent listing sought by the petitioners. Justice Sundresh pointedly questioned the urgency of the matter during the hearing, as reported by Outlook India.
The bench’s most pointed observation came when Justice Sundresh remarked: “Heavens are not going to fall” — signalling the court’s view that the matter did not warrant interruption of the vacation schedule.
The bench directed: “List immediately after reopening.” It also instructed petitioners to furnish a copy of the petition to the court’s registry, and to submit a formal letter to the Registry if they sought an earlier listing, according to Bar & Bench.
The matter has been registered as WP (Crl.) No. 241/26 @ Diary No. 37770/26, styled Ajay Kumar Rai Vs. Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, per Verdictum. The court also told petitioners: “Please circulate the mention slip.”
Legal Analysis & Implications
The charges against the accused invoke provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita covering criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy — offences that carry significant custodial consequences and require rigorous evidentiary standards at trial.
The petitioners’ reliance on Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh is legally significant. In that October 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court replaced a state-constituted SIT with a CBI-led body in the Tirupati ghee adulteration matter, setting a potential template for cases where the independence or competence of a state investigation is credibly questioned.
The court’s refusal to grant urgency does not amount to a rejection of the petition’s merits. By directing listing immediately after reopening, the bench has preserved the petitioners’ right to a full hearing while declining to compress that timeline into the vacation period.
Reactions & Stakeholder Response
Petitioner Ajay Kumar Rai, who appeared in person, pressed the court on the risk to digital and financial evidence, underscoring the petitioners’ concern that delay could prejudice the investigation’s integrity.
The UP government has, through its state SIT constituted on June 13, signalled that it considers its own investigative framework adequate — a position the petitioners have squarely contested before both the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court is expected to reopen after its summer vacation around July 12–13, 2025, following which the matter is directed to be listed immediately, per LiveLaw and NewsDrum. Petitioners retain the option to submit a letter to the Registry seeking an earlier listing date if circumstances warrant.
A parallel PIL seeking a CBI probe into the donation row is also pending before the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench, where an out-of-turn hearing was similarly declined. Both proceedings will be watched closely as the UP state SIT continues its inquiry on the ground.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
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.
