How donations were counted at Ayodhya's Ram temple and how it differed from other UP temples

Investigations into the alleged mismanagement of donations at the newly constructed Ram temple in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, have raised serious concerns about the transparency and accountability of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. The inquiry, led by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), has uncovered several procedural flaws in the way cash donations were handled, leading to the arrest of eight employees involved in the counting process. These findings have sparked comparisons with the more structured systems used by other major temples in the state, highlighting significant differences in financial oversight practices.

Between April 1, 2025, and February 28, 2026, the Ram temple received approximately ₹ 82.78 crore in cash donations. Additionally, the trust generated ₹ 138.03 crore in interest from bank deposits during the same period, bringing its total income to ₹ 220.81 crore. However, discrepancies in the handling of these funds have come to light following the arrests and subsequent investigations. So far, ₹ 79.85 lakh has been recovered from seven of the arrested individuals, while two senior members of the trust, Champat Rai and Anil Mishra, have resigned amidst the controversy.

The counting process at the Ram temple involved multiple parties, including staff from the State Bank of India (SBI), employees from a Varanasi-based agency, and some members of the trust itself. According to reports, there was no clear segregation of duties or independent verification of the cash counts. Furthermore, the counting staff were not required to wear pocketless clothing, and no government officials were present to oversee the process. A private agency was tasked with frisking the cash handlers, adding another layer of potential oversight gaps. Although CCTV cameras were installed, the footage was automatically overwritten after 45 days, limiting the availability of visual evidence. Documentation and audit mechanisms were reportedly inadequate, contributing to the lack of transparency in the financial operations of the trust.

In contrast, other major temples in Uttar Pradesh have implemented more rigorous procedures to ensure financial accountability. For instance, the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi opens its 56 donation boxes twice a week under the direct supervision of a subdivisional magistrate. This process occurs under continuous CCTV surveillance with the presence of bank officials and an independent retired gazetted officer. All transactions are meticulously documented and subsequently deposited into the government treasury. Similarly, the Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple in Mathura employs three permanently manned receipt counters operating under CCTV surveillance, ensuring a transparent process for collecting and recording donations.

The Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan follows a high-powered oversight mechanism established under Supreme Court directions. A committee headed by a retired Allahabad High Court judge supervises the donation management process. Donation boxes are opened once a month in the presence of a sub-divisional magistrate and committee members, all under CCTV surveillance. Collections are then deposited into authorized bank accounts, reinforcing the commitment to financial integrity and accountability.

The involvement of the State Bank of India in the Ayodhya temple's financial affairs has drawn attention due to the personal connections between certain bank officials and trust members. One such connection involves Addikya Raghu Ram Sagar, an SBI official who was questioned by the SIT regarding the alleged theft. Sagar resides in the home of Anil Mishra, a prominent figure in the trust and a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Despite claims of innocence, Sagar's association with Mishra has raised eyebrows among investigators, prompting further scrutiny into the relationships that might influence the handling of temple finances.

As the investigation progresses, authorities are focusing on the role of individuals like Ramshankar Yadav, also known as Tinnu, who is currently in judicial custody. During custodial interrogation, co-accused Avinash Shukla alleged that Tinnu was given access to a key for the secure donation counting room. This access, according to Shukla, allowed Tinnu to potentially manipulate the counting process and divert funds. Investigators are verifying these claims through documentary evidence, witness statements, and records related to access to the counting room. They are also examining how the accused coordinated their movements within the counting room to avoid CCTV surveillance, suggesting possible collusion to conceal their activities.

With the ongoing inquiries, the future of the Ram temple's financial management remains uncertain. The revelations have prompted calls for greater transparency and stricter oversight mechanisms to prevent similar incidents in the future. As the SIT continues its probe, the outcomes of the investigations will likely shape the policies and practices governing temple donations across the state.