Congress questions Ram temple donation theft probe, seeks answers from Modi

• Congress questions the Ram temple donation theft probe, alleging that senior Trust officials’ roles and accountability are not being adequately examined

• Jairam Ramesh questions the 21-day delay in filing an FIR and asks why only eight people are accused in 105 alleged theft incidents

• Congress demands an independent, transparent probe under Supreme Court monitoring and seeks clarity on the alleged Rs 79.85 lakh recovery

The Congress on Sunday questioned the investigation into alleged thefts of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya and accused the government of shielding those responsible for overseeing the temple administration.

Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh also questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi's silence on the matter, saying the party wanted accountability not only for those accused of stealing donations but also for anyone who may have failed to prevent or properly investigate the alleged incidents.

In a post on X, Ramesh alleged that the investigation had not adequately addressed questions surrounding the role of senior figures associated with the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.

“Why is the Modi government so lenient towards the thieves who stole donations meant for Lord Shri Ram's Ayodhya temple?” Ramesh asked.

A key issue raised by the Congress was the alleged delay between the authorities receiving information about the theft and the registration of an FIR.

Ramesh said a video related to the alleged stolen amount reached Trust general secretary Champat Rai on 4 June, while CCTV footage was viewed on 5 June. According to him, the FIR was eventually registered on 25 June — a gap of 21 days.

“Our question is straightforward: a video regarding the stolen amount reached Champat Rai on 4 June, the CCTV footage was viewed on June 5, and the FIR was lodged on 25 June. Why hasn't the full truth behind this 21-day delay been revealed to the nation?” he said.

The Congress also questioned why, if the investigation covered 105 alleged incidents of donation theft, only eight people were listed as accused.

Ramesh further claimed that Rs 79.85 lakh had been recovered and questioned whether the recovered amount accounted for the full value of the alleged thefts.

Ramesh questioned why former Trust general secretary Champat Rai and Trust member Anil Mishra were being treated as witnesses rather than accused in the case.

Both Rai and Mishra resigned from their respective positions in June. The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust had said that a fair inquiry would be conducted into the allegations concerning temple donations.

The Congress argued that the investigation should examine not only the alleged thefts but also whether there was negligence, collusion or a failure of oversight within the temple administration.

“How can there be only eight accused despite 105 incidents?” Ramesh asked, questioning whether the probe was limited to identifying alleged petty thieves or would also establish accountability among those responsible for the administration and security arrangements.

The Opposition party reiterated its demand for an independent and transparent investigation monitored by the Supreme Court, arguing that such a probe would establish the facts surrounding the alleged thefts and the handling of the complaints.

Ramesh also questioned why the investigation was allegedly being brought to a close when the total amount involved in the reported incidents remained unclear.

“Prime minister, when will you break your silence on this matter, which is deeply linked to the faith of the people?” Ramesh said, adding that accountability should be fixed if wrongdoing is established.

The Congress has repeatedly criticised the handling of the case and alleged that powerful individuals connected with the temple administration were being protected. These remain political allegations by the opposition party, while the investigation and any findings by the relevant authorities will determine responsibility in the case.

With PTI inputs