Champat Rai Gets Clean Chit In Ram Temple Offering Case, But Questions Over 'Big Fish' Remain

Lucknow: Former Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust general secretary Champat Rai has reportedly been given a clean chit by the Uttar Pradesh government's Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the alleged theft of offerings at the Ram temple in Ayodhya, raising questions over whether the ‘big fish’ have been protected while eight employees have faced arrest and prosecution.

SIT report and clean chit

According to sources, the SIT's final report, submitted to the state government, does not name Rai or trust member Dr Anil Mishra as criminal accused or fix responsibility on them. The Home Department has examined the report and made it available to the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust for necessary action.

The findings have triggered questions over the fairness and accountability of the investigation, particularly because the earlier probe had reportedly established that cash was stolen from the temple premises and pointed to serious lapses in the security, counting and monitoring arrangements.

The key question now is whether responsibility for such lapses can be confined to employees at the lower level when the temple's offering management was under the supervision of senior officials and trust functionaries.

Probe into temple management

The SIT was constituted by the state government on June 13 following a request from the trust. Lucknow divisional commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant headed the three-member team, with IG Range Kiran S and Special Secretary, Finance, Neel Ratan Kumar as its members.

The team examined documents, CCTV footage, statements and other evidence relating to the alleged irregularities in the handling of offerings. The preliminary investigation had reportedly found that employees were seen taking cash out of the temple premises on multiple occasions. Questions were also raised over the failure to conduct proper searches of employees, adherence to the prescribed dress code and compliance with standard operating procedures for counting and handling cash.

Questions over accountability

This has raised a broader question: if the prescribed SOPs were not followed and there was inadequate surveillance over the movement of cash, who was responsible for supervising the system?

The issue is not limited to identifying the people who allegedly took the cash. The investigation was also expected to establish how such activity could allegedly continue without being detected and what level of supervision existed over the entire process.

Action against employees

The SIT submitted its preliminary report to the government on June 23 and recommended stringent action. Based on the report, an FIR was registered at the Ram Janmabhoomi police station on June 25.

Eight employees were named in the case and subsequently faced action. They are Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava and Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu. Several unidentified people were also made accused.

The accused were booked under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Arrests and other action followed on the basis of the preliminary SIT findings.

Also Watch:

Senior officials under scrutiny

The controversy had also brought the roles of Rai and Mishra under scrutiny. Both had resigned from their respective positions in the trust amid the controversy. However, according to sources, neither has been named as a criminal accused in the final SIT report.

The development leaves several questions unanswered. If the temple's cash security and counting arrangements suffered serious lapses, why was responsibility not fixed on those entrusted with supervising the system? Why did alleged repeated movement of cash outside the designated system not reach the attention of senior officials? Where exactly did the joint system involving the trust and the bank fail? And on what grounds were the roles of senior functionaries either ruled out or not made part of the criminal investigation?

The final report is therefore likely to come under scrutiny not only for the action recommended against the eight employees but also for the reasoning behind not fixing responsibility on senior functionaries.

For the authorities, the immediate challenge is to explain whether the final findings adequately address the supervisory and administrative failures identified during the earlier stages of the investigation, and whether accountability in the case has been applied equally at every level.