Don't do politics, let probe reach logical end: SC to hear Ram temple case next week
The Supreme Court told parties not to politicise the Ram temple donation theft case as it reviewed the SIT probe into the matter. The court said it wanted the investigation to reach a logical end and will hear the matter again on July 27.
The Supreme Court on Monday said it wanted the investigation into the theft of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya to reach a "logical end" and cautioned parties against politicising the issue, as it heard a batch of pleas seeking a fair and time-bound probe into the matter. The court will hear the matter again on July 27.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, that a status report had been filed in compliance with the court's earlier directions and that the investigation was progressing.
Mehta told the court that eight people had been arrested so far in connection with the case. "Investigation is going on. I cannot reveal much at this stage. The SIT was constituted to give an opinion on whether a cognisable offence existed; the state police are conducting the investigation," he said.
During the hearing, the bench observed that the matter essentially concerned the investigation of an alleged crime and stressed that the court's focus was to ensure a proper and credible probe. "It is a simple case of commission of crime. We are just to ensure proper investigation," the bench said.
CJI Kant repeatedly urged all stakeholders not to turn the matter into a political controversy. "We are being cautious. Don't politicise the issue. We just want the investigation to reach a logical end," the CJI said, adding that courts were not a forum for political battles.
The hearing also saw a discussion on the role of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government. Responding to the court's queries, the Solicitor General said the SIT consisted of Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, Special Secretary (Finance) Neel Ratan and Inspector General of Police Kiran S.
However, Mehta clarified that the SIT itself was not conducting the investigation. "Instead, it had been constituted to examine whether a cognisable offence was made out and to give its opinion, following which the state police carried out the actual investigation," he said.
Mehta's clarification prompted the bench to suggest that the SIT could be reconstituted and entrusted with overseeing or conducting the ongoing investigation itself.
The court noted that the panel already included senior officers and suggested that the investigation could be headed by a senior IPS officer who is a part of the SIT. "There are two IAS officers and one senior IPS officer. Let there be an SIT for the ongoing investigation," the bench observed.
CJI Kant suggested that the state consider reconstituting the SIT with senior and specialised officers so that the probe could proceed in a more effective manner and reach a conclusive stage.
The court, however, stopped short of issuing any formal direction and asked the Uttar Pradesh government to seek instructions on the proposal before the next hearing. "We will have it after a few days. Please take instructions," the bench told the Solicitor General.
Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, appearing for one of the petitioners, raised concerns about the accounting of donations made to the temple. He submitted that there were allegations that money offered by devotees was not reaching the Trust and suggested that a transparent digital system be put in place to track donations.
Kamat also pointed to concerns regarding donations made in kind, including silver offerings, and argued that proper inventory records should be maintained. "Many have given silver. There has to be a record for inventory," he submitted.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court posted the matter for further consideration on July 27, when the Uttar Pradesh government is expected to update the bench on the status of the probe and respond to the court's suggestions regarding the SIT.
ABOUT THE RAM TEMPLE CASE
The case relates to allegations of theft and embezzlement of donations offered at the Ayodhya Ram temple. The controversy surfaced in early June and has so far led to the arrest of eight people, and the resignation of two senior functionaries of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust – former general secretary Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra.
On June 25, police registered an FIR on a complaint filed by the Trust and arrested eight accused – Avinash Shukla, Lavkush Mishra, Anukalp Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu Yadav and Subhash Srivastava.
Investigators have alleged that Tinnu Yadav, a former driver of Champat Rai, supervised donation boxes at the temple, while Manish Kumar Yadav was involved in counting offerings. Police have already recovered cash from the residences of some of the accused and are probing whether additional money and valuables were siphoned off.
According to investigators, CCTV footage shows several accused concealing bundles of currency notes inside their clothes, pockets and shoes while counting donations at the temple's Pilgrim Facilitation Centre.
The Uttar Pradesh government had constituted the three-member SIT on June 13 following a request from the temple trust after allegations of misappropriation of donations surfaced. The Supreme Court is now examining whether additional steps are required to ensure a thorough and credible investigation.
The Supreme Court on Monday said it wanted the investigation into the theft of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya to reach a "logical end" and cautioned parties against politicising the issue, as it heard a batch of pleas seeking a fair and time-bound probe into the matter. The court will hear the matter again on July 27.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, that a status report had been filed in compliance with the court's earlier directions and that the investigation was progressing.
Mehta told the court that eight people had been arrested so far in connection with the case. "Investigation is going on. I cannot reveal much at this stage. The SIT was constituted to give an opinion on whether a cognisable offence existed; the state police are conducting the investigation," he said.
During the hearing, the bench observed that the matter essentially concerned the investigation of an alleged crime and stressed that the court's focus was to ensure a proper and credible probe. "It is a simple case of commission of crime. We are just to ensure proper investigation," the bench said.
CJI Kant repeatedly urged all stakeholders not to turn the matter into a political controversy. "We are being cautious. Don't politicise the issue. We just want the investigation to reach a logical end," the CJI said, adding that courts were not a forum for political battles.
The hearing also saw a discussion on the role of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government. Responding to the court's queries, the Solicitor General said the SIT consisted of Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, Special Secretary (Finance) Neel Ratan and Inspector General of Police Kiran S.
However, Mehta clarified that the SIT itself was not conducting the investigation. "Instead, it had been constituted to examine whether a cognisable offence was made out and to give its opinion, following which the state police carried out the actual investigation," he said.
Mehta's clarification prompted the bench to suggest that the SIT could be reconstituted and entrusted with overseeing or conducting the ongoing investigation itself.
The court noted that the panel already included senior officers and suggested that the investigation could be headed by a senior IPS officer who is a part of the SIT. "There are two IAS officers and one senior IPS officer. Let there be an SIT for the ongoing investigation," the bench observed.
CJI Kant suggested that the state consider reconstituting the SIT with senior and specialised officers so that the probe could proceed in a more effective manner and reach a conclusive stage.
The court, however, stopped short of issuing any formal direction and asked the Uttar Pradesh government to seek instructions on the proposal before the next hearing. "We will have it after a few days. Please take instructions," the bench told the Solicitor General.
Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, appearing for one of the petitioners, raised concerns about the accounting of donations made to the temple. He submitted that there were allegations that money offered by devotees was not reaching the Trust and suggested that a transparent digital system be put in place to track donations.
Kamat also pointed to concerns regarding donations made in kind, including silver offerings, and argued that proper inventory records should be maintained. "Many have given silver. There has to be a record for inventory," he submitted.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court posted the matter for further consideration on July 27, when the Uttar Pradesh government is expected to update the bench on the status of the probe and respond to the court's suggestions regarding the SIT.
ABOUT THE RAM TEMPLE CASE
The case relates to allegations of theft and embezzlement of donations offered at the Ayodhya Ram temple. The controversy surfaced in early June and has so far led to the arrest of eight people, and the resignation of two senior functionaries of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust – former general secretary Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra.
On June 25, police registered an FIR on a complaint filed by the Trust and arrested eight accused – Avinash Shukla, Lavkush Mishra, Anukalp Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu Yadav and Subhash Srivastava.
Investigators have alleged that Tinnu Yadav, a former driver of Champat Rai, supervised donation boxes at the temple, while Manish Kumar Yadav was involved in counting offerings. Police have already recovered cash from the residences of some of the accused and are probing whether additional money and valuables were siphoned off.
According to investigators, CCTV footage shows several accused concealing bundles of currency notes inside their clothes, pockets and shoes while counting donations at the temple's Pilgrim Facilitation Centre.
The Uttar Pradesh government had constituted the three-member SIT on June 13 following a request from the temple trust after allegations of misappropriation of donations surfaced. The Supreme Court is now examining whether additional steps are required to ensure a thorough and credible investigation.
The Supreme Court on Monday said it wanted the investigation into the theft of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya to reach a "logical end" and cautioned parties against politicising the issue, as it heard a batch of pleas seeking a fair and time-bound probe into the matter. The court will hear the matter again on July 27.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, that a status report had been filed in compliance with the court's earlier directions and that the investigation was progressing.
Mehta told the court that eight people had been arrested so far in connection with the case. "Investigation is going on. I cannot reveal much at this stage. The SIT was constituted to give an opinion on whether a cognisable offence existed; the state police are conducting the investigation," he said.
During the hearing, the bench observed that the matter essentially concerned the investigation of an alleged crime and stressed that the court's focus was to ensure a proper and credible probe. "It is a simple case of commission of crime. We are just to ensure proper investigation," the bench said.
CJI Kant repeatedly urged all stakeholders not to turn the matter into a political controversy. "We are being cautious. Don't politicise the issue. We just want the investigation to reach a logical end," the CJI said, adding that courts were not a forum for political battles.
The hearing also saw a discussion on the role of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government. Responding to the court's queries, the Solicitor General said the SIT consisted of Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, Special Secretary (Finance) Neel Ratan and Inspector General of Police Kiran S.
However, Mehta clarified that the SIT itself was not conducting the investigation. "Instead, it had been constituted to examine whether a cognisable offence was made out and to give its opinion, following which the state police carried out the actual investigation," he said.
Mehta's clarification prompted the bench to suggest that the SIT could be reconstituted and entrusted with overseeing or conducting the ongoing investigation itself.
The court noted that the panel already included senior officers and suggested that the investigation could be headed by a senior IPS officer who is a part of the SIT. "There are two IAS officers and one senior IPS officer. Let there be an SIT for the ongoing investigation," the bench observed.
CJI Kant suggested that the state consider reconstituting the SIT with senior and specialised officers so that the probe could proceed in a more effective manner and reach a conclusive stage.
The court, however, stopped short of issuing any formal direction and asked the Uttar Pradesh government to seek instructions on the proposal before the next hearing. "We will have it after a few days. Please take instructions," the bench told the Solicitor General.
Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, appearing for one of the petitioners, raised concerns about the accounting of donations made to the temple. He submitted that there were allegations that money offered by devotees was not reaching the Trust and suggested that a transparent digital system be put in place to track donations.
Kamat also pointed to concerns regarding donations made in kind, including silver offerings, and argued that proper inventory records should be maintained. "Many have given silver. There has to be a record for inventory," he submitted.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court posted the matter for further consideration on July 27, when the Uttar Pradesh government is expected to update the bench on the status of the probe and respond to the court's suggestions regarding the SIT.
ABOUT THE RAM TEMPLE CASE
The case relates to allegations of theft and embezzlement of donations offered at the Ayodhya Ram temple. The controversy surfaced in early June and has so far led to the arrest of eight people, and the resignation of two senior functionaries of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust – former general secretary Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra.
On June 25, police registered an FIR on a complaint filed by the Trust and arrested eight accused – Avinash Shukla, Lavkush Mishra, Anukalp Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Ram Shankar Yadav alias Tinnu Yadav and Subhash Srivastava.
Investigators have alleged that Tinnu Yadav, a former driver of Champat Rai, supervised donation boxes at the temple, while Manish Kumar Yadav was involved in counting offerings. Police have already recovered cash from the residences of some of the accused and are probing whether additional money and valuables were siphoned off.
According to investigators, CCTV footage shows several accused concealing bundles of currency notes inside their clothes, pockets and shoes while counting donations at the temple's Pilgrim Facilitation Centre.
The Uttar Pradesh government had constituted the three-member SIT on June 13 following a request from the temple trust after allegations of misappropriation of donations surfaced. The Supreme Court is now examining whether additional steps are required to ensure a thorough and credible investigation.
