The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition seeking legal action against former Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust general secretary Champat Rai in connection with allegations concerning the handling of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
The petition has been filed by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha. It seeks directions concerning alleged irregularities in the management of temple donations and land transactions around the temple premises. The petitioner has also sought the dissolution of the existing Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust and its complete reconstitution.
According to the petition, the organisation has alleged that funds collected for the construction and management of the Ram Temple were misappropriated. It has also raised allegations concerning the purchase of land in areas surrounding the temple. These are allegations made by the petitioner and are yet to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the plea along with other matters connected with the alleged irregularities in the handling of donations at the Ram Temple. The matter is scheduled for hearing on November 2. The court's decision to hear the petition does not amount to a finding that the allegations made against any individual are established.
The petition also seeks directions to the Uttar Pradesh authorities to take steps concerning properties allegedly held by trustees or persons associated with them. The petitioner has requested that movable and immovable properties connected with the alleged irregularities be dealt with in accordance with law.
The development comes against the backdrop of an investigation by a Special Investigation Team into alleged irregularities involving donations collected at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. The SIT recently filed a chargesheet against eight accused persons before the anti-corruption court in Ayodhya. The chargesheet reportedly contains extensive material relating to the alleged removal or concealment of cash during the donation-counting process.
Importantly, recent reports on the chargesheet make a distinction between the people accused in the case and those listed as witnesses. Former Trust general secretary Champat Rai and former trustee Anil Kumar Mishra have been named as prosecution witnesses in the chargesheet. They are not among the eight people chargesheeted as accused. The chargesheet lists 133 witnesses, including Rai and Mishra.
The eight people named as accused face charges relating to alleged criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to reports, they were involved in the counting and handling of donations at the temple. The investigation examined CCTV footage, bank records, mobile phone data, property transactions and other evidence as part of the probe.
Investigators have also reported identifying multiple instances in which cash was allegedly removed or concealed during the donation-counting process. According to the investigation material reported by news organisations, CCTV footage was examined to identify alleged unauthorised removal of currency from the counting area. Police also recovered money during the investigation from several of the arrested accused.
Champat Rai's position in the investigation is significant because he held the post of general secretary of the Trust during the period under examination. He was questioned by investigators about the process through which donations were collected, counted and deposited. According to reports on the chargesheet, Rai told investigators that he first became aware of the alleged irregularities after receiving information while travelling. He subsequently reviewed relevant material and was involved in the process that led to the filing of the complaint.
An earlier SIT report had cleared Rai of being an accused in the donation case. Reports in August said the SIT did not name him as an accused in its final report. He subsequently appeared in the chargesheet as a prosecution witness rather than as an accused.
The distinction between an accused and a prosecution witness is important in understanding the present legal position. Being named as a witness does not mean that a person has been charged with the offences mentioned in the case. Similarly, allegations contained in a petition do not establish criminal liability unless they are proved through the appropriate legal process.
The petitioner has nevertheless sought wider action, including the dissolution and reconstitution of the existing Trust. The organisation has argued that changes made after the allegations surfaced did not amount to a complete restructuring of the institution and has therefore requested further intervention.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the petition means that the court will consider the legal issues raised by the petitioner. The court has not, at this stage, made a final determination on the allegations against Champat Rai or on the request to dissolve and reconstitute the Trust.
The case is being watched because the Ram Temple Trust manages donations and other contributions associated with the temple in Ayodhya. Questions concerning the handling and accounting of such funds have attracted public and legal attention following the investigation.
The ongoing proceedings will determine how the petitioner's allegations are considered alongside the findings of the investigation and the existing court proceedings. The chargesheet against the eight accused will continue before the competent court, while the Supreme Court will consider the separate plea seeking action against Rai and other directions concerning the Trust.
The November 2 hearing is therefore expected to provide the next significant legal development in the matter. Until the courts reach a final conclusion, allegations contained in the petition and the chargesheet should not be treated as established facts. The legal status of Champat Rai in the investigation remains that of a prosecution witness, not a chargesheeted accused, according to the recent investigation reports.
