← Back to Freedom News

Freedom News / National

NATIONAL

‘Focus is on probe’: Supreme Court seeks forensic auditor in Ram Temple case

Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant told the state to include technical audit capacity and filed notices as it continues to monitor the investigation.

By Freedom News Staff • Freedom News • July 27, 2026

On July 27, 2026, the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to add a forensic (forensic‑investigative) auditor to the Special Investigation Team probing allegations of misappropriation of donations to the Ram Janmabhoomi/Ram Mandir Trust, and ordered the SIT to file a status report on its inquiry. A three‑judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, heard a batch of public interest petitions; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court the state had constituted an SIT, and the bench accepted that technical forensic capacity should be added to ensure a “speedy and qualitative investigation.”

What the court ordered

The bench asked the Uttar Pradesh government to associate a forensic auditor with the SIT and directed the team to submit a status report about its ongoing investigation. The court said the SIT must have access to relevant records and signalled that remedial or supervisory directions could follow once the report is reviewed.

The three‑judge bench — Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana — took the step while hearing petitions that seek independent scrutiny of the Trust’s finances. The court issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Theerth Kshetra Trust, and said it will continue to monitor the matter.

What petitioners are seeking

Petitions before the court seek a range of remedies. Some plaintiffs have urged a Central Bureau of Investigation probe and an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General; others have demanded a comprehensive forensic audit, publication of donation records and court‑supervised safeguards to preserve financial materials.

Reported petitioners include Narendra Kumar Goswami, advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, RJD MP Sudhakar Singh and organisations such as the Hindu Dharma Parishad. Counsel for petitioners argued the complexity and nationwide reach of donations — including cash, digital and in‑kind contributions — require specialised forensic accounting and strong evidence‑preservation measures such as safeguarding CCTV, DVR and digital ledger data.

What happens next

The immediate procedural step is the SIT’s status report to the Supreme Court. After reviewing that document the court may issue further directions, including whether to reconstitute the SIT, expand its terms, or transfer the matter to a central agency.

Observers and petitioners will watch three things closely: who is appointed as the forensic auditor and their terms of reference; whether the SIT’s filed report (some accounts say it was submitted in sealed cover) discloses documentary financial traces or evidentiary leads; and whether the court sets a timeline for follow‑up hearings or additional oversight measures. The next concrete development is the court’s review of the SIT’s status report.

Sources reviewed