How did the alleged Ram Temple donation theft happen? SIT points to nine major lapses

As investigation continues into the alleged donation theft at Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has uncovered nine major procedural and security failures that it says have enabled the alleged embezzlement of funds. The investigation revealed that the irregularities stemmed from repeated violations of established protocols rather than a single security breach. The findings indicate that several layers of financial oversight and physical security were either ignored or poorly implemented, leaving the donation-counting process vulnerable to manipulation.

What did the SIT find?

The investigators found that employees were not frisked before they entered or exited the cash counting hall in the temple. It was also found that there was no rule mandating a pocketless uniform, which could prevent cash from being concealed during the counting process.

The SIT also found that employees were given permission to carry their personal items, including bags, into the counting area despite rules prohibiting such practices. According to the officials, this is believed to have weakened security and increased the risk of unauthorised handling of cash.

Regarding the accounting system, the investigation found that money collected from each donation box was not counted separately. Cash from multiple hundis was reportedly mixed together before being processed. This made it impossible to verify collections from individual donation boxes or accurately reconcile records.

Another key finding was the absence of detailed documentation during counting. The SIT found no denomination-wise records, vouchers or certification documents to establish how much money had been received, counted and deposited. Without such records, auditing the collections became extremely difficult.

The probe also highlighted that attendance of employees was not monitored properly. Biometric verification for counting staff was either not properly implemented or inconsistently followed, making it difficult to determine who was present during individual counting sessions.

The SIT concluded that these failures collectively dismantled the safeguards intended to protect temple donations, allowing financial irregularities to go undetected for an extended period.