Donation row: Does Ram Temple trust hold differing positions on Champat Rai, Anil Mishra?
The strong support in the temple trust and VHP for Champat Rai contrasts the lack of any visible public defence of Anil Mishra
While neither the trust’s former general secretary Champat Rai nor former trustee Anil Mishra have been named accused, recent developments suggest the two senior figures are being viewed in very different ways within the trust itself. If the public messaging emerging after the trust's recent meeting is any indication, there appears to be concerted support for Rai. At the same time, questions surrounding Mishra's role seem to grow.
The trust met on July 6, days after the special investigation team (SIT) submitted its preliminary report on the alleged pilferage. The findings have become the centre of discussion both inside and outside the trust. At the meeting, trust treasurer Swami Govind Dev Giri said Rai had resigned because he felt it was morally inappropriate to continue until the truth emerged.
According to Giri, Rai said he did not wish to remain in office until those responsible for the alleged theft were identified and punished. The treasurer, however, made it clear that he personally did not hold Rai responsible. “I have known Champat Rai for 32 years. His only mistake was that he placed too much trust in those close to him. We respect him greatly. In my view, he is blameless and not a criminal,” Giri said.
Speaking after the meeting, Giri acknowledged the donation controversy was a huge setback. “We are all hurt and saddened. Whether the theft was small or large is secondary. What pains us is that such an atmosphere was allowed to develop,” he said.
Although several trust members reportedly opposed Rai's resignation, founding trustee K. Parasaran, who joined the meeting through video conferencing, said that under the trust's constitution, a resignation stood accepted once it had been submitted.
Support for Rai has not been limited to the trust alone. He continues to serve as vice-president of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). VHP president Alok Kumar said there was no question of taking action against Rai unless any evidence of wrongdoing emerged. “Champat Rai will continue to hold his position in the VHP. No action should be taken until allegations are proven,” he declared.
The public backing has come at a time when allegations surfaced that some donated gold and silver items handed over to Rai had gone missing. Following the trust’s meeting, officials displayed several of those articles before the media, including a silver Kakbhushundi, Charan Paduka, a silver necklace and a gold-plated Ramcharitmanas. The trust also produced a register containing details of around 2,800 donated items and invited donors to inspect the records if they had any doubts.
Another significant development came through a letter written by Rai to the SIT after he examined the preliminary report. Rai questioned a standard operating procedure document governing the donation-counting process. “There is a document in your records, titled ‘Jointly Determined Guidelines for the Calculation Process’, dated February 6, 2025, signed by trustee Anil Mishra and chief manager of State Bank of India, Ayodhya branch, Govind Mishra. I reject it,” he said in the viral letter.
Rai claimed he had never been informed about these guidelines and that his signature did not appear on the document even though, according to him, every major agreement signed between 2020 and 2026 carried his signature. He also questioned why standard banking safeguards, including frisking of counting personnel and the use of pocketless clothing, were allegedly not followed.
According to Rai, the bank did not enforce these rules. “The young men selected for counting were employed as housekeeping staff. Is this appropriate? In my opinion, not at all,” he said. His letter effectively shifts part of the focus towards the procedures adopted during the counting process rather than merely the alleged theft itself.
However, unlike Rai, no senior trust member has publicly come out to defend Mishra. Sources familiar with the preliminary SIT findings indicate that Mishra's role has come under scrutiny because he was associated with financial supervision and management of offerings. According to the reported findings, Mishra was aware that mandatory searches of personnel involved in counting donations were not always being carried out but allegedly failed to ensure corrective measures.
The preliminary observations reportedly state that inadequate supervision contributed to the alleged embezzlement. The scrutiny around Mishra has also been fuelled by fresh allegations. Former Ram Temple engineer Dinanath Verma alleged in an interview on social media that Mishra demanded commissions in connection with construction work at the temple. These allegations remain unverified, and no criminal case relating to those claims has been reported. Meanwhile, while Giri visited Rai after the trust’s July 6 meeting, there has been no similar public show of support for Mishra.
The controversy has also resulted in immediate administrative changes. The temple administration has deactivated the digital IDs of Rai, Mishra and former temple administrator Gopal Rao. According to people familiar with the matter, these IDs could earlier be used to issue Sugam and Vishisht Darshan passes. The move follows allegations that one of the accused in the donation theft case allegedly misused these digital IDs to issue darshan passes indiscriminately.
For now, the criminal investigation continues against the eight people named in the FIR, all of whom were associated with the donation-counting process. However, the debate within the trust appears to be moving beyond the alleged theft itself.
Public statements by senior trust members, the VHP's support for Rai, Rai's own attempt to distance himself from the donation-counting procedures and the continued questions surrounding Mishra suggest that responsibility for the controversy is being viewed differently within the organisation.
Whether those perceptions are ultimately reflected in the SIT's final report remains to be seen. Until then, the probe is likely to remain as much about institutional accountability as about the alleged theft itself.
Amidst all this, the trust has formally invited applications for the post of chief executive officer (CEO), signalling its move towards a more professional administrative structure. The three-year contractual post, based in Ayodhya, seeks candidates with at least 20 years of managerial experience; preference will be given to those who have served as chief administrative officers or have experience managing temples or Hindu religious institutions.
Subscribe to India Today Magazine
While neither the trust’s former general secretary Champat Rai nor former trustee Anil Mishra have been named accused, recent developments suggest the two senior figures are being viewed in very different ways within the trust itself. If the public messaging emerging after the trust's recent meeting is any indication, there appears to be concerted support for Rai. At the same time, questions surrounding Mishra's role seem to grow.
The trust met on July 6, days after the special investigation team (SIT) submitted its preliminary report on the alleged pilferage. The findings have become the centre of discussion both inside and outside the trust. At the meeting, trust treasurer Swami Govind Dev Giri said Rai had resigned because he felt it was morally inappropriate to continue until the truth emerged.
According to Giri, Rai said he did not wish to remain in office until those responsible for the alleged theft were identified and punished. The treasurer, however, made it clear that he personally did not hold Rai responsible. “I have known Champat Rai for 32 years. His only mistake was that he placed too much trust in those close to him. We respect him greatly. In my view, he is blameless and not a criminal,” Giri said.
Speaking after the meeting, Giri acknowledged the donation controversy was a huge setback. “We are all hurt and saddened. Whether the theft was small or large is secondary. What pains us is that such an atmosphere was allowed to develop,” he said.
Although several trust members reportedly opposed Rai's resignation, founding trustee K. Parasaran, who joined the meeting through video conferencing, said that under the trust's constitution, a resignation stood accepted once it had been submitted.
Support for Rai has not been limited to the trust alone. He continues to serve as vice-president of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). VHP president Alok Kumar said there was no question of taking action against Rai unless any evidence of wrongdoing emerged. “Champat Rai will continue to hold his position in the VHP. No action should be taken until allegations are proven,” he declared.
The public backing has come at a time when allegations surfaced that some donated gold and silver items handed over to Rai had gone missing. Following the trust’s meeting, officials displayed several of those articles before the media, including a silver Kakbhushundi, Charan Paduka, a silver necklace and a gold-plated Ramcharitmanas. The trust also produced a register containing details of around 2,800 donated items and invited donors to inspect the records if they had any doubts.
Another significant development came through a letter written by Rai to the SIT after he examined the preliminary report. Rai questioned a standard operating procedure document governing the donation-counting process. “There is a document in your records, titled ‘Jointly Determined Guidelines for the Calculation Process’, dated February 6, 2025, signed by trustee Anil Mishra and chief manager of State Bank of India, Ayodhya branch, Govind Mishra. I reject it,” he said in the viral letter.
Rai claimed he had never been informed about these guidelines and that his signature did not appear on the document even though, according to him, every major agreement signed between 2020 and 2026 carried his signature. He also questioned why standard banking safeguards, including frisking of counting personnel and the use of pocketless clothing, were allegedly not followed.
According to Rai, the bank did not enforce these rules. “The young men selected for counting were employed as housekeeping staff. Is this appropriate? In my opinion, not at all,” he said. His letter effectively shifts part of the focus towards the procedures adopted during the counting process rather than merely the alleged theft itself.
However, unlike Rai, no senior trust member has publicly come out to defend Mishra. Sources familiar with the preliminary SIT findings indicate that Mishra's role has come under scrutiny because he was associated with financial supervision and management of offerings. According to the reported findings, Mishra was aware that mandatory searches of personnel involved in counting donations were not always being carried out but allegedly failed to ensure corrective measures.
The preliminary observations reportedly state that inadequate supervision contributed to the alleged embezzlement. The scrutiny around Mishra has also been fuelled by fresh allegations. Former Ram Temple engineer Dinanath Verma alleged in an interview on social media that Mishra demanded commissions in connection with construction work at the temple. These allegations remain unverified, and no criminal case relating to those claims has been reported. Meanwhile, while Giri visited Rai after the trust’s July 6 meeting, there has been no similar public show of support for Mishra.
The controversy has also resulted in immediate administrative changes. The temple administration has deactivated the digital IDs of Rai, Mishra and former temple administrator Gopal Rao. According to people familiar with the matter, these IDs could earlier be used to issue Sugam and Vishisht Darshan passes. The move follows allegations that one of the accused in the donation theft case allegedly misused these digital IDs to issue darshan passes indiscriminately.
For now, the criminal investigation continues against the eight people named in the FIR, all of whom were associated with the donation-counting process. However, the debate within the trust appears to be moving beyond the alleged theft itself.
Public statements by senior trust members, the VHP's support for Rai, Rai's own attempt to distance himself from the donation-counting procedures and the continued questions surrounding Mishra suggest that responsibility for the controversy is being viewed differently within the organisation.
Whether those perceptions are ultimately reflected in the SIT's final report remains to be seen. Until then, the probe is likely to remain as much about institutional accountability as about the alleged theft itself.
Amidst all this, the trust has formally invited applications for the post of chief executive officer (CEO), signalling its move towards a more professional administrative structure. The three-year contractual post, based in Ayodhya, seeks candidates with at least 20 years of managerial experience; preference will be given to those who have served as chief administrative officers or have experience managing temples or Hindu religious institutions.
Subscribe to India Today Magazine
