The preliminary probe by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged theft of cash offerings at a Ram temple has put Dr Anil Mishra, senior official of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Tirth Kshetra Office, under the scanner, holding him responsible for supervisory failures that allegedly allowed repeated theft of cash donations from devotees despite his knowledge that mandatory security checks were not being carried out.
The three-member Independent Investigation Committee, in its report submitted to the Uttar Pradesh government on June 23, attributed supervisory accountability to Dr Mishra, saying his failure to ensure enforcement of standard operating procedures (SOP) created conditions that allegedly enabled repeated theft and criminal misappropriation inside the temple’s donation counting room.
Dr Mishra’s resignation from the trust was accepted at its meeting held in Ayodhya on Monday, days after the special investigation team submitted its report.
The report formed the basis for registering an FIR, following which eight people were arrested. While six counting staff were identified as being directly involved in the alleged theft of cash donations, the SIT separately examined the role of senior trust staff responsible for overseeing the entire counting process.
According to the report, Dr. Mishra was one of the trust representatives charged with supervising the financial management and fundraising operations. He jointly prepared and signed detailed SOPs for cash handling with State Bank of India (SBI) and Ayodhya Branch Manager Govind Mishra after the Trust and the bank executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) governing the management of temple donations.
The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which was finalized on February 6, 2025, outlined a detailed security architecture to prevent theft. Among its most important guarantees was the compulsory inspection of every person entering and leaving the counting room. The protocol also stipulated biometric attendance, uniform without pockets, prohibition of carrying personal belongings, authentication by sect, donation box counting, automated counting, CCTV monitoring, and daily reporting.
According to the Special Investigation Team, it is the responsibility of the trust to ensure transparency and integrity in the counting process. Despite being one of the key architects of the standard operating procedures, Dr Mishra failed to ensure that safeguards were implemented on the ground, the investigation says. The report identifies the failure to enforce inspections as one of the most serious lapses.
According to the SIT, Dr. Mishra received information through internal channels that mandatory frisking of counting staff was not conducted while entering and exiting the counting room. Despite being aware of the breach, investigators say he did not issue any effective written directives to ensure compliance with the mandatory security measure.
The Special Court further alleges that no meaningful remedial intervention was followed even though other key safeguards – including biometric attendance, mandatory uniform, restrictions on personal belongings within the counting room, denominational accounting, and daily reporting – were also not implemented.
Investigators also questioned the major change made in standard operating procedures on February 6, 2025.
The report notes that while the previous system required mandatory inspection of every individual entering or exiting the counting room, the revised SOP relaxed this requirement by replacing mandatory checks with “regular/random” inspections. The special court held Dr. Mishra responsible for this dilution and added that even the diluted provision was not implemented in practice.
“It was his responsibility to ensure continuous monitoring of the standard operating procedures issued under his supervision,” the report says in essence, concluding that the absence of continuous supervision and corrective action allowed repeated violations of the stated safeguards.
The SIT further notes that as the Fund’s representative in formulating the SOPs with the SBI, Dr. Mishra was expected to constantly check whether all the approved safeguards were being followed. Instead, it alleges that supervisory oversight remained ineffective despite knowledge of repeated procedural violations.
The report also scrutinizes the assignments made in the sensitive cash counting process.
According to the Special Investigation Team, Subhash Srivastava was appointed administrator on the recommendation of Dr. Mishra. Investigators say Srivastava was responsible for enforcing inspections, maintaining discipline and ensuring compliance with all security protocols inside the counting room. However, the Special Court identified his failure to ensure mandatory inspection as the most serious operational lapse even though the repeated thefts allegedly occurred.
The investigation also alleges that Ramshankar Yadav, alias Tino, facilitated the appointment of his relative Manish Kumar Yadav as counting agent through SBI employee Ratnesh Chaturvedi. CCTV footage allegedly showed Manish hiding or removing donation money from May 11, 2026 onwards.
According to the SIT, all six people identified as ostensibly involved in the alleged money theft were deployed through SBI’s contractual agency, Sainik Security Services, on the recommendations of Trust office officials, a practice that investigators say is against the spirit of standard operating procedures.
The report also notes that internal audit reports from 2022-2023 to 2025-2026 repeatedly pointed to weaknesses in donation management, including poor documentation, insufficient CCTV coverage during the transportation of donations, failure to issue receipts for donated items, and inadequate maintenance of CCTV footage. Despite repeated audit feedback, deficiencies allegedly remained unaddressed.
Investigators say surveillance footage examined during the investigation captured nearly 70 instances in which census workers allegedly concealed or removed bundles of currency or loose cash. The Special Court concluded that these repeated acts were made possible because mandatory safeguards – including inspections – remained largely confined to written procedures and were not implemented effectively.
While recommending criminal action against the six persons who were allegedly seen handling and concealing cash, the special court clarifies that its findings against Dr Anil Mishra relate to supervisory accountability and his alleged failure to ensure implementation of mandatory security protocols. He emphasizes that the findings are part of a preliminary investigation and that issues relating to institutional, managerial and supervisory responsibility will be subject to further examination in the final report.
