Ram Temple embezzlement row: Supreme Court urged to secure digital evidence before it is ‘quietly lost’
For the second time during the summer holidays, the Supreme Court has not committed to urgently hear petitions seeking intervention in the Ram Temple embezzlement case, even though a lawyer, one of the petitioners, had on Monday (June 29, 2026) highlighted the possibility that electronic evidence such as CCTV footage could be “quietly lost”, deleted, overwritten or corrupted in the coming days.
Advocate NK Goswami, after making an unlisted oral statement before a Holiday Bench headed by Justice MM Sundresh, said: “Electronic evidence is not like stone inscriptions. CCTV system does not wait for court holidays. DVR does not comply with listing schedule. Digital payment records and access records can be altered, moved or deleted. Therefore, when the solution sought is preservation of evidence, adjournment itself can turn into denial of justice.”
Mr. Goswami said he was not seeking a final hearing, only a protection order without prejudice.
“My concern is that CCTV/DVR data, QR-UPI records, Hundi records, counting sheets, bank and cash registers may be destroyed before the case is listed,” he said.
During the oral evidence, Mr. Goswami informed the Bench that the Registry of the Supreme Court had informed him that the petition would be taken up only after the summer vacation, which ended on July 12.
Mr. Goswami went on to urge the court to issue an order for the security of electronic evidence. However, without directly addressing the issue raised by the lawyer, the Board asked him to follow the procedure for mentioning and listing cases.
Last week had witnessed another petition seeking the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a multi-disciplinary Special Investigation Team to investigate misuse of temple donations. The petition was filed by Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, both lawyers. When Mr. Rai further mentioned this petition, Justice Sundresh reacted by saying, “Heaven will not fall if the case is heard after the Supreme Court resumes its normal functioning.”
Mr. Goswami sought a declaration from the high court that offerings made to a deity in a public temple constitute “sacred trust property vested in the deity as a legal entity” and that those handling such offerings are “trustees charged with duties of transparency, accountability and preservation.”
The petition was referring to the apex court’s own verdict in October 2025 against the Kerala State Guruvayur Devaswom Management Committee, which held that temple offerings in cash, gold or in kind are the “absolute and inalienable property of the deity as a legal entity”.
“If a devotee religiously throws a coin into the hundiyal, the coin instantly ceases to be secular currency and becomes the personal property of the deity,” the court ruled.
The petition requested immediate preservation of all evidence, records, CCTV footage and digital records related to donations and offerings at Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, as well as requesting the court to order a status report on the ongoing SIT investigation.
He sought an independent forensic audit of donations, offerings and valuables received by Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust since its inception till date.
The petition stated that they not only wanted an investigation into a local crime, but also wanted structural constitutional guarantees for the management of sacred public donations.
The petition asks the court to constitute or constitute an expert committee comprising representatives of Union and State authorities, audit/accounting experts, digital payment/cyber forensics experts and temple management experts to create a ‘National Minimum Temple Endowment Transparency Framework’ for religious endowments and public temples of national importance, including but not limited to Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, Ayodhya and Shri Krishna Janmasthan. guidance requested. Mathura.
The petition states that the framework is based on the rituals, traditions, worship, etc. of the place of worship. It will be strictly limited to secular aspects such as receipt, storage, counting, accounting, auditing, digital trail, inventory control, CCTV protection, QR/UPI verification, bank reconciliation and public accountability of donations and offerings, without interfering, it said.
It was published – 29 June 2026 12:36 IST
