The Supreme Court on Monday, November 2, 2026, closed multiple pleas seeking a CBI probe into the alleged embezzlement of Ram Temple donations. The reason was simple and it changed the whole case: the State of Uttar Pradesh told the court that its Special Investigation Team had already filed a charge sheet.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India stepped back from any further judicial scrutiny. The petitioners were not sent away empty-handed, though. The court allowed them to assist the trial court in further proceedings.

Victims of crime, not spectators

The Bench reasoned that the petitioners could assist the court in the capacity of “victims of crime” because the case involved issues of public interest. The petitioners include Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Case Trust, Ajay Kumar Rai, Narendra Kumar Goswami and Sudhakar Singh, among others.

“Courts have allowed victims of crimes to assist, similarly you also assist the court… If there is an element of public interest involved, law enables victims to assist the court,” Chief Justice Kant told the petitioners.

That line sums up the shift. A plea that began as a demand for a central agency probe ended with the petitioners placed inside the trial process itself.

What the petitioners wanted

The pleas went well beyond a CBI investigation. The petitioners had sought the immediate preservation of evidence, records, CCTV footage and digital logs relating to donations and offerings at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir.

They also asked for an independent forensic audit of donations, offerings and valuable items received by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust from its inception till date. Their demand went further still. They wanted the apex court to constitute, or direct the constitution of, an expert committee to frame a ‘National Minimum Temple Donation Transparency Framework’.

That committee would include representatives of the Union and State authorities, audit and accounting experts, digital-payment and cyber-forensic experts, and temple-administration experts. The framework was meant for public temples and religious endowments of national importance, and for temples receiving substantial annual donations. The petitioners named Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, Ayodhya and Shri Krishna Janmasthan at Mathura among them.

The CCTV trail

The most striking number in the case came from the SIT’s earlier status report. It said 105 instances of unauthorised currency removal were captured on CCTV in the temple donations misappropriation case.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing on November 2, said initial investigations could only grab 48 hours of CCTV footage. The probe team, however, traced back to find out how and where the purloined money was used. According to the status report, the estimated amount misappropriated by each accused individual was also noted.

Mehta submitted that the misappropriations had occurred during the counting of the money, which was allegedly invested in property by the accused persons. That allegation now sits with the trial court, not the apex court.

Valuables, silver and the locker

The status report also went through the valuables. Receipts generated by the TCS software for 803 valuable articles were verified, and their relevant records were found with the Temple Trust. These articles were stored in a State Bank of India locker, which was physically checked. No discrepancies were found in those items.

The problem lay elsewhere. There were 86 valuable articles for which receipts had not been issued. These were separately identified and physically verified.

The Trust also sent records relating to approximately 944.411 kg of white metal, supposed to be silver, to Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited for melting. Particular allegations about valuable donations, reported in the media and on social media, were also checked. Those included 200 kg of silver bricks, 38.288 kg of silver bricks, a silver necklace, Charan Paduka, and a donation related to the Ramcharitmanas. The individuals involved were interviewed and pertinent materials were examined. No discrepancies were identified in that verification process.

173 witnesses and eight names

The SIT recorded the statements of 173 witnesses. The status report said relevant Standard Operating Procedures and records on the counting and handling of donations, security arrangements, CCTV recordings and reconciliation records had been examined to the extent relevant to the investigation.

The FIR named eight people as accused: Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava and Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu. Other unidentified individuals were also named as accused.

Where the case goes now

With the Supreme Court out of the immediate picture, the matter returns to the trial court. The petitioners will assist that court as victims of crime. The Bench had framed its reasoning around public interest, which means the case’s transparency questions will not disappear with the order.

The pleas that asked for a CBI probe, a forensic audit and a national donation framework have been closed in their present form. What remains is a case built on CCTV footage, 173 witness statements, unissued receipts and a locker full of valuables, now running through a trial court with the petitioners at its side.