Negligence, lack of oversight: SIT pins Ram Temple lapses on ex-trustee Anil Mishra

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has raised questions over the role of former trustee Anil Mishra, holding him responsible for negligence and lack of supervision in the counting process.

In its nine-page preliminary report, the SIT said Mishra was also involved in recommending the appointment of six of the eight accused later named in the FIR and arrested.

On Monday, in its first meeting since the allegations surfaced, the Trust announced a sweeping organisational overhaul, including leadership changes and the creation of a new chief executive officer (CEO) post.

The Trust also accepted the resignations of Rai and Mishra, and appointed senior RSS functionary and retired Indian Forest Service (IFoS) officer Krishna Mohan as interim General Secretary.

Sources said a majority of the trustees in the meeting had opposed Rai’s resignation. Trust Treasurer, Govind Giri, also said Rai cannot be held responsible for the negligence and the lapse in supervision.

Why SIT flagged Mishra’s role

The report flagged Mishra’s role with regard to the arrangement governing the counting process of donations.

Story continues below this ad

It said a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between the Trust and the State Bank of India, prescribing a procedure for opening donation boxes, separating cash and coins, classifying valuable items, counting the currency, and depositing it in the bank in the joint presence of authorised representatives of the Trust and the Bank.

It said that on September 20, 2024, and February 6, 2025, Minutes of Meeting/Standard Operating Procedure (MoM/SOP) were prepared between the Trust and the Bank, which were signed by then SBI Branch Manager, Ayodhya, Govind Mishra, and Anil Mishra.

These documents, the report noted, clearly show that potential weaknesses and risks had been identified in advance and security measures prescribed to prevent them.

These included:

-Preparing a list of offering/donation boxes

-Not shifting any offering/donation box without written permission

-Shift-wise counting

-Deployment of a fixed number of counting personnel

-Biometric attendance

-Hundi-wise counting, not mixing amounts of different hundis

-Prescribed dress code

-Frisking at the time of entry and exit

Story continues below this ad

According to the SIT report, the February 2025 SOP stated that the responsibility for maintaining transparency and authenticity of the counting process would rest with the Trust.

The investigation, however, found that these security measures were not implemented — a deliberate act of negligence that created circumstances for theft/misappropriation, the SIT report has stated.

It said Mishra, who represented the Trust while framing both the September 2024 arrangement and the February 2025 SOP with the bank, was expected to ensure that safeguards were enforced. The report noted that little evidence of sustained oversight, regular review, or effective supervision was found.

Role of accused

Among the eight arrested is Rai’s former driver Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu Yadav. The others are Avinash Shukla, Lavkush Mishra, Anukalp Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, and Subhash Srivastav. Srivastav, a retired bank employee, was the counting in-charge and officer supervising the opening of the boxes while the other six were involved in counting work.

Story continues below this ad

The SIT placed particular responsibility on Srivastava, noting that the alleged thefts occurred inside the counting room and that the failure to ensure regular frisking of staff was a critical lapse.

It also found that Tinnu retained custody of keys to hundis across the temple complex without formal authorisation and had recommended his relative, Manish Kumar Yadav, for counting duty, thereby granting him access to the process where the alleged misappropriation took place.

The report further flagged lapses by bank officials, noting that counting staff were not provided with prescribed attire and that oversight remained weak despite the presence of bank representatives. The mandated monthly rotation of bank officials overseeing the process was also not implemented.