Crores of Rupees have been embezzled from the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. The investigation is ongoing, and several lapses have been reported in the management of the temple. General Secretary of the Trust Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra have resigned from their posts.
Now, Champat Rai has blamed the State Bank of India (SBI) for major security lapses. The SIT is investigating the alleged theft of an estimated Rs 7 to 7.5 crore in temple cash offerings. The staff involved in counting the cash stole crores of cash from the temple. Deleted CCTV footage showed counting staff concealing bundles of money.
SBI was given the responsibility of counting cash in the temple. But as per reports, apart from SBI, there were some external staff also involved in cash counting. These external staff were deployed by the trust and SBI was forced to involve these external staff in cash counting.
In his statement before the Special Investigation Team (SIT), Champat Rai alleged that the State Bank of India (SBI) failed to follow important security guidelines while counting temple donations. He claimed these lapses led to embezzlement of donation money.
Champat Rai Alleges SBI Ignored Security Rules
According to Champat Rai, detailed guidelines for counting the temple’s daily donations were jointly prepared in February 2025. However, he alleged that officials at SBI’s Ayodhya branch did not follow these rules during the cash-counting process.
He said that banks handling large amounts of cash normally follow strict chest-room security procedures, including:
- Thorough security checks while entering and leaving the counting room.
- Staff wearing uniforms without pockets.
- Strict monitoring of everyone involved in the cash-counting process.
Rai claimed these standard security measures were not properly implemented in the Ayodhya Ram Temple donation counting process.
Cash Counting Arrangement Raised Security Concerns
Champat Rai further alleged that SBI staff advised workers to count cash while sitting on chairs with the money spread across tables. According to him, this arrangement reduced effective surveillance and increased the possibility of theft.
He also claimed that the individuals assigned by the bank to handle the donation money were classified as “housekeeping staff,” raising further questions about the security and supervision of the counting process.
Trust Says It Followed Its Responsibilities
Defending the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, Rai said the Trust had fulfilled all security responsibilities mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).
According to him, the Trust had already installed:
- CCTV cameras inside the donation counting room.
- A secure iron-bar door for the counting area.
- Other required security arrangements for protecting temple donations.
He argued that the alleged shortcomings were related to the bank’s operational procedures rather than the Trust’s infrastructure.
Questions Raised Over SBI Management
Champat Rai also questioned whether senior officials of the State Bank of India were aware of the security guidelines issued for handling temple donations.
He said that if higher officials had properly monitored the process, the alleged violations could have been identified and corrected earlier. He further stated that the February 2025 guidelines were prepared in haste and clarified that he was not a signatory to the final document.
The Ayodhya Ram Temple donation theft case has entered an important phase with Champat Rai directly alleging that SBI’s failure to follow established security protocols contributed to the alleged embezzlement.
Eight counting staff have been arrested in connection with the theft case, and efforts are underway to recover stolen assets from the temple donation boxes. The SBI, which maintains the temple trust’s account, had outsourced the job to count the donation funds to another agency.
Of the eight accused, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Ramashankar Mishra, Avnish, and Karunesh Shukla were recruited through an outsourcing agency for the job. It has been learnt that they were all either relatives or close associates of the trust officials and worked under the supervision of Ratnesh and Gagandeep.
The investigation is ongoing and more details will be released soon.
