English
English
English
Congress questions the 21-day gap between CCTV review and FIR registration in the Ayodhya case. (Img: Pinterest)
New Delhi: The Congress has intensified its attack over the alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple, with Jairam Ramesh questioning the investigation and the 21-day gap before the FIR was registered.
The party has also questioned how eight people were chargesheeted despite 105 alleged theft incidents and why former temple Trust officials Champat Rai and Anil Mishra were named as witnesses.
## Congress Raises Fresh Questions Over Ram Temple Donation Case
The alleged theft of devotees’ offerings at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has triggered a fresh political controversy after Congress leader Jairam Ramesh questioned the scope and handling of the investigation.
Ramesh has alleged that the probe has focused on people accused of taking donation money but has not fully examined whether there were failures in supervision, negligence or possible collusion within the temple administration.
The Congress has also questioned the reported decision to treat former Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust general secretary Champat Rai and Trust member Anil Mishra as witnesses rather than accused.
These are allegations raised by the Congress and have not been established by a court.
## 21-Day Gap Between CCTV Review And FIR
The timeline of the case has become one of the main points of contention.
According to details cited by the Congress, a video linked to the allegedly stolen donation money reached Champat Rai on June 4. The CCTV footage was reportedly reviewed on June 5, while the FIR was registered on June 25.
Ramesh has questioned the 21-day gap and sought an explanation for the delay.
The issue has gained significance because the subsequent investigation reportedly identified multiple incidents involving the alleged removal of devotees’ offerings during the counting process.
## 105 Alleged Incidents But Eight Accused
The Congress has also focused on the difference between the number of alleged theft incidents and the number of people chargesheeted.
The SIT investigation identified 105 alleged instances of donation theft, while eight people have been named as accused in the chargesheet.
The Opposition party has questioned whether the investigation went beyond the alleged direct thefts and examined the larger chain of responsibility involving supervision, security and financial controls.
The Congress has argued that if negligence or failure of oversight is established, accountability should also be examined at the appropriate level.
## Rs 79.85 Lakh Recovery Under Question
Another issue raised by Ramesh is the reported recovery of Rs 79.85 lakh.
The Congress has questioned whether the recovered amount represents the entire financial loss associated with the 105 alleged incidents.
The issue has particular sensitivity because the money involved came from devotees making offerings at the Ram Temple, one of the country's most prominent religious sites.
The Congress has therefore demanded clarity on the total amount allegedly stolen and the basis on which the investigation is being brought to a close.
## What The SIT Chargesheet Reveals
The Special Investigation Team has filed a chargesheet against eight accused persons, relying on CCTV footage and other electronic evidence.
The investigation reportedly examined mobile phone chats and Call Detail Records to establish communication links among the accused.
The eight people named in the chargesheet are Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Rama Shankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava and Rama Shankar alias Tinnu.
The chargesheet attributes different alleged roles to the accused in the removal or handling of donation money during the counting process.
The investigation reportedly identified around 98 witnesses, including Champat Rai, Anil Mishra and Gopal Ji.
## How The Alleged Theft Was Detected
CCTV recordings have emerged as a key component of the investigation.
According to the chargesheet details, investigators reviewed footage of the donation-counting process and allegedly identified repeated instances in which some accused persons were seen removing or assisting in the removal of offering money.
The investigation also used digital evidence, including mobile communications and Call Detail Records, to examine alleged links between the accused.
The FIR was registered on June 25 following a complaint by Krishanmohan, a member of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. The complaint alleged theft, embezzlement and planned misappropriation of donations.
## Champat Rai And Anil Mishra Become Political Flashpoints
The status of former Trust officials has become one of the biggest points of political disagreement.
Champat Rai and Anil Mishra were listed as witnesses in the case and 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, however, has questioned why senior figures associated with the administration were not included among the accused.
There is no court finding establishing criminal wrongdoing by Rai or Mishra in the alleged theft case. Their inclusion as witnesses does not by itself establish either guilt or innocence.
## VHP Defends Investigation
The controversy has also drawn a response from the Vishva Hindu Parishad.
VHP International President Alok Kumar has maintained that the investigation was completed and did not establish wrongdoing beyond the alleged theft of offerings.
The VHP position differs from the Congress demand for a wider investigation into possible administrative lapses, negligence or accountability.
This has turned the case into a larger political and public debate involving temple administration, donation security, financial transparency and institutional accountability.
## Congress Wants Independent Probe
The Congress has reiterated its demand for an independent, impartial and credible investigation under Supreme Court monitoring.
The party argues that the investigation should establish not only who allegedly removed the money but also whether any administrative or security failures enabled the alleged incidents to continue.
The demand comes as the political debate shifts from the alleged theft itself to the larger question of accountability within the temple's donation-management system.
## Why The Ram Temple Donation Case Matters
The case carries significance beyond the reported financial loss because it involves donations made by devotees at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
The controversy has raised questions about cash-handling procedures, CCTV surveillance, internal controls, staff accountability and verification mechanisms at major religious institutions.
For devotees and the wider public, the central issue is whether the investigation has established the complete financial loss and identified everyone who may be legally responsible.
The chargesheet will now face judicial scrutiny, with the court examining the evidence and allegations against the accused during the legal process.
The Congress is expected to continue demanding an independent probe and greater accountability, while the prosecution will have to establish its allegations before the court.
The key questions surrounding the case remain the alleged total amount stolen, the reason for the 21-day gap before the FIR, the significance of the 105 alleged incidents and whether the investigation has fully examined the wider chain of responsibility.
