New Delhi: Amidst the ongoing controversy following reports of the alleged theft of offerings at Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir last month, the Uttar Pradesh government’s home department constituted a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the allegations. The SIT’s interim report has now laid bare the kinds of embezzlement and theft ongoing on the temple – but there are also some questions that the SIT has not raised.At the very outset, the SIT observes that, prima facie, it appears certain employees responsible for counting the donations were involved in the theft and embezzlement of cash.CCTV footage captured 70 instances of theft within a span of 40 days. The interim report further acknowledges that there had been serious lapses in the management of offerings and security arrangements for years – concerns that have been repeatedly highlighted by internal audits but have not been effectively addressed.However, this interim report raises more questions than it answers. It also fails to raise questions around the involvement and/or negligence of those at the very top.The SIT was constituted at the behest of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. In a letter to the government dated June 12, the Trust stated that media and social media reports concerning the management and misappropriation of temple offerings were creating doubts among devotees and therefore an independent investigation into the entire matter was necessary.Consequently, the home department of the Uttar Pradesh government constituted the SIT on June 17. The team was tasked with investigating the entire incident to ascertain how the theft occurred, identify the individuals accountable and recommend necessary reforms to avert such incidents in the future.Following an investigation that lasted just six days, the SIT presented its nine-page interim report to the additional chief secretary (home) on June 23.The SIT has recommended that an FIR be filed against six individuals: Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey and Ramashankar Mishra. However, the report makes no mention of the Trust’s then-general secretary and Vishva Hindu Parishad leader, Champat Rai.While the SIT has noted the supervisory failures of senior Trust office-bearer Anil Mishra and the official in charge of counting, Subhash Srivastava, it has not reached a definitive conclusion regarding the role of the top decision-making body or other senior office-bearers.Moreover, the report fails to answer several major questions, such as the total amount of funds embezzled and where the ultimate responsibility lies for the institutional failures that persisted over the years.How are offerings made at the temple?According to the report, devotees present their offerings at the Ram Temple through three primary channels:First, by depositing cash, coins, gold, silver and other valuables into the hundis, or donation boxes, installed within the temple premises.Second, by depositing them directly at counters designated by the Trust.And third, by placing offerings at the feet of Ram Lalla near the sanctum sanctorum.It has been reported that the cash and valuables collected through these channels were taken to a counting room, where they were tallied with the help of the State Bank of India (SBI).A detailed standard operating procedure (SOP) was established between the Trust and the bank for this purpose. This procedure mandated that donation boxes be opened in the joint presence of Trust and bank representatives; separate records be maintained for each box; staff undergo searches upon entry and exit; counting staff wear special clothing without pockets; personal belongings be prohibited inside the counting room; biometric attendance be recorded for every employee; and the entire process be conducted under CCTV surveillance.On paper, the system appeared extremely robust. However, the SIT investigation revealed that, in practice, these rules were not followed at all.This is where the serious irregularities began.Shortcomings in management of cashThe SIT asserts that in order to comprehend the incidents of theft, it is crucial to understand the functioning of the entire system that manages offerings.According to the report, the primary and most serious flaw was that cash retrieved from various hundis was commingled before the counting process even commenced. Whereas the prescribed procedure mandated that the contents of each hundi be counted and recorded separately.As a direct consequence, it became nearly impossible to ascertain later exactly how much money had been collected in a specific hundi on any given day. The SIT has identified this as a serious institutional flaw regarding accountability and transparency.Shortcomings in management of valuablesThe SIT’s investigation reveals that the issue extended beyond cash. There were serious procedural deficiencies in the management of gold, silver and other valuables too. When gold, silver or other precious items are taken out from any box, they are kept separately and deposited in a special hundi (number 12). Later, records are prepared, pertaining to their weighing, photography, recording and safe sealing.But in many cases these procedures were not consistently followed. Complaints also surfaced regarding certain devotees not being issued receipts.However, the SIT additionally notes that surprise physical verification of 11 valuable items stored in the locker was carried out and they were confirmed to be available.The report also states that the process of dispatching the precious metals to the Indian Security Printing and Minting Corporation for melting was also recorded. Nevertheless, the SIT acknowledged the necessity to enhance the overall management system of valuables to ensure greater transparency, accountability and documentation.CCTV revealed layers of theftThe primary foundation of the SIT’s interim report is the CCTV footage of the counting room.The report indicates that an analysis of video recordings between April 27 and June 5, 2026 revealed about 70 such incidents where counting staff were observed taking cash out of the counting room by concealing it in their clothing, pockets and shoes and by other methods.The report explicitly states that this was a recurring trend observed on different dates. The SIT has described this as a ‘continuous trend’.The investigation also revealed that the available footage did not cover the entire period. The CCTV system in the counting room retained recordings only for a limited timeframe, after which it was automatically overwritten. Therefore, the SIT was able to analyse only those incidents that occurred during the time for which recordings were accessible.The report acknowledges that the testimonies of the accused employees, along with other circumstances, indicate that the incidents of theft might have been happening prior to April 27. However, due to non-availability of older recordings, investigation of that period was not possible.This is the point where the SIT admits that the evidence at hand fails to provide a complete picture of the true extent of the loss.What facilitated the theft?During its investigation, the SIT uncovered that almost all security protocols designed for the counting room were either completely inactive or not being enforced.According to the report, mandatory searches of staff upon entry and exit were not being performed. The requirement for a designated pocket-less uniform was not implemented in practice; employees were allowed to wear personal clothing and, in many instances, brought mobile phones and other personal belongings into the counting room.The seating arrangement in the counting room was such that stacks of cash remained within easy reach of the staff.According to the SIT, the combination of these lapses facilitated the theft.Critical observations on changes to the SOPThe counting of donations at the Ram Mandir was conducted under a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the SBI and the Trust.The report notes that responsibilities were distinctly outlined within this framework. The Trust was responsible for the security of the hundis, the process of opening them, the management of the counting room, security measures and surveillance. On the other hand, the SBI was responsible for managing the counting process, the staff counting the cash, the machinery, banking records and the deposit procedure.The SIT states that despite the clear demarcation of responsibilities, neither party effectively enforced the security arrangements in practice.An important detail in the report is that the system implemented under the MoU with the SBI, dated September 20, 2024, contained a clear provision for the mandatory search of every individual entering or leaving the counting room.However, the Trust modified this arrangement in the updated SOP issued on February 6, 2025. The revised SOP substituted the requirement for a mandatory search for every individual with a clause for “random searches”.In reference to this modification, the SIT observes that the circumstances under which Trust officials made this amendment warrant a thorough investigation.Role of Sainik Security ServicesThe report indicates that the personnel working in the counting room were not direct employees of the Trust. They were provided through a contracted agency, Sainik Security Services, and were deployed by the bank for the counting operations.The SIT states a detailed investigation of the entire mechanism regarding the recruitment process, verification and supervision of personnel is necessary. As a result, the report does not limit itself to the role of the employees but also highlights the need to review the entire recruitment process.Role of Ramshankar Yadav alias ‘Tinnu’Ramshankar Yadav, alias ‘Tinnu’, is the person whose name is frequently mentioned in the report. The SIT states that he possessed the keys to the temple’s donation boxes yet no formal written authorisation for this has been found.Moreover, Manish Kumar Yadav – who was allegedly involved in the theft – was appointed upon his recommendation.The report observes that allowing an individual to exercise effective control over such a sensitive operation without written authorisation constituted a serious flaw in the security system itself.The SIT has recommended further investigation into his role from a criminal perspective.CCTV cameras installed but not monitoredThe SIT also found that while an adequate number of CCTV cameras were installed in the counting room, the use of these cameras was largely limited to recording as there was no effective live monitoring or real-time surveillance.The report concludes that had the camera feeds been monitored regularly, the incidents of theft could have been prevented at the time they occurred.In other words, the issue lay not in the availability of technology, but in its utilisation.Recovery of lakhs of rupees prior to SIT formationAccording to the report, the Trust had initiated action independently even before the establishment of the SIT.The investigation reveals that a total of approximately Rs 78.94 lakh in cash was recovered from six individuals involved in the theft. Additionally, foreign currency, jewellery and various other valuables were also seized.The report also mentions an incident that occurred on June 4, 2026, in which around Rs 2.25 lakh in cash was recovered from the restroom connected to the counting room.According to the SIT, this recovery further indicates that there was an organised attempt to remove funds from the counting room.Warnings received for over four yearsOne of the most crucial aspects of the SIT report pertains to internal audit reports.The report reveals that internal audits conducted for the financial years 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 repeatedly highlighted serious shortcomings.Several key recommendations were made in these audit reports:Separate records should be maintained for each hundi.Mandatory searches should be conducted upon entry to and exit from the counting room.Receipts should be issued immediately upon the receipt of valuables.CCTV recordings should be preserved for at least 180 days.Security arrangements should be further strengthened.Documentation processes should be improved.However, the SIT found that no substantial measures were implemented in response to these warnings.The report explicitly states that Trust officials did not take the audit reports seriously and chose to ignore them.This observation constitutes one of the report’s most crucial findings, as it suggests that the security lapses were not recent but had been documented over a span of several years.SIT’s findings on three high-profile allegationsThe report additionally examines three incidents that had gone viral on social media.The first case involves silver bricks presented by Anurag Rastogi, who is the North India head of the Indian Bullion and Jewelers Association.The second case is about the claim made by Raju Mandwani, president of the Vishwa Sindhi Seva Samaj, who stated that he had donated 200 kg of silver but did not receive a receipt for it.The third instance involves a silver necklace and charan padukas, or ceremonial footwear, presented by Anil Vishwakarma from Mumbai.In each of the three cases, the SIT examined Trust records, the locker register and available documents.According to the report, the valuable items in question were found recorded in the Trust’s records. Some items were later sent to the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India for melting and records of the same are also available.Based on this, the SIT concluded that the allegations made on social media have not been substantiated.However, the report fails to clarify how the grievances of devotees about not receiving receipts were addressed, or provide clarity about the independent process for evaluating the valuables.This is where the other aspect of the SIT report comes to the fore, where while it dismisses some allegations, it leaves many important questions unanswered.Contradictions in the report’s findingsThe concluding section of the SIT’s interim report holds the most significance as it presents two distinct conclusions simultaneously.The report indicates, on one hand, that there is prima facie evidence of the incidents of theft and the embezzlement of funds occurring within the counting room. On the other hand, the report also emphasises that most of the irregularities stemmed from ‘systemic deficiencies’.But the facts recorded within the report complicate this conclusion further.The report states that there was serious negligence in implementing the security system, with many rules deliberately disregarded. Moreover, despite receiving warnings over the years, no systemic reforms were made.This raises many questions that the interim report fails to answer.What was the total amount stolen?This is the biggest unanswered question in the entire report. The SIT claims that around 70 incidents are visible in the available CCTV footage. A total of Rs 78.94 lakh was recovered from six people. In addition, Rs 2.25 lakh cash was found in the attached washroom. Foreign currency and other valuable items were also recovered.But the report does not provide an estimate of the total sum of money that has been embezzled.This matter is significant because the SIT has acknowledged that the available CCTV footage covers only a limited period and the theft could have occurred even before April 27, 2026.If this is the case, the actual loss could far exceed the recoveries made so far. However, the interim report offers no assessment concerning this matter.Why were audit warnings ignored for four years?A key finding of the SIT report is that internal audit reports spanning the financial years 2022-23 to 2025-26 consistently pointed out major shortcomings.These reports recommended strengthening search procedures, maintaining separate accounts for each donation box, improving the documentation of valuable items, retaining CCTV recordings for 180 days and upgrading security arrangements.The SIT observes that Trust officials failed to take these audit reports seriously and disregarded the audit findings. However, the report does not address the following:At what level were final decisions regarding these audit reports taken?Which officials failed to implement these recommendations?Will any administrative or criminal accountability be fixed for this negligence?Why was the retention period of CCTV recordings limited?The interim report also fails to explain why no decision was taken to increase the CCTV recording capacity.Why was the search protocol changed?Another significant finding of the SIT report relates to the revised SOP implemented on February 6, 2025. Under the new system, the mandatory search of every individual was replaced by a system of ‘regular/random’ searches.The report states that the circumstances under which this amendment was made require a thorough investigation.However, it presents no findings from such an investigation. It also fails to specify who proposed the decision, who granted approval, or if the opinion of security experts was sought.Is the investigation regarding valuables incomplete?The SIT has exonerated the Trust in the three cases that gained widespread attention on social media.According to the report, the silver bricks, necklaces and charan padukas in question were found recorded in the Trust’s registers, with some items subsequently sent to the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India for melting. However, the report remains silent on certain crucial aspects. For example:Who conducted an independent valuation of the valuables before they were melted down?How were the grievances of those who complained about not receiving receipts addressed?Was the inventory of valuables verified against records by an independent agency?The interim report provides no answers to these questions.The question of top-level accountabilityThe report remarks on the roles of Anil Mishra, Srivastava and Tinnu, and recommends filing FIRs against six employees.However, it draws no definitive conclusion regarding the collective accountability of the Trust’s apex decision-making body.Nor does the report clarify at what level the persistent security lapses were reviewed over the years, who examined the audit reports or who bore the ultimate responsibility for enforcing security protocols.What’s next?In its concluding remarks, the SIT emphasises that its investigation remains ongoing. In essence, the SIT has so far only stated that theft occurred during the counting of temple offerings, that security arrangements failed and that the involvement of several employees and supervisory officials seems suspicious prima facie, warranting criminal action against them.Yet, it is equally evident that this interim report has left numerous questions unanswered – questions whose answers will determine whether this incident was merely a matter of theft by a handful of employees, or indicative of a long-standing pattern of institutionalised plunder.This article originally appeared on The Wire Hindi and has been translated by Naushin Rehman.