Ram Temple donation probe: Is SIT's credibility already in question?

As allegations of donation theft at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya continue to gather pace, doubts are now emerging about the very credibility of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the matter.

According to reports, IAS officer Vijay Vishwas Pant, the Lucknow divisional commissioner who heads the three-member SIT, is himself facing allegations of cheating and forgery. These claims are based on documents and a first information report (FIR) flagged by journalist Abhishek Upadhyay on his YouTube channel.

Also read: Ram Mandir donation scam: Survey on 2027 poll leaves BJP and RSS jittery

In this episode of Capital Beat, The Federal spoke with a panel featuring Sharad Pradhan, author and political commentator; Shahira Naim, senior journalist; and Sarvesh Tripathi, national spokesperson of UP's opposition Samajwadi Party and lawyer.

It appears that Upadhyay has published copies of a 2019 FIR registered at Parikshitgarh Police Station in Meerut, where Pant has been named as accused No. 14 in an alleged cheating and forgery case under Sections 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation in that case is still reportedly pending.

How a person facing such allegations is entrusted with leading this investigation remains the moot point.

Questions over SIT

The reports have triggered widespread political reactions, including statements from Congress spokesperson Surendra Rajput, Congress Seva Dal and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, all of whom questioned the appointment of Pant as the SIT chief.

The SIT had been constituted before the registration of an FIR into the alleged temple thefts, observed Naim, describing it as unusual. According to her, the emergence of documents alleging pending criminal proceedings against the SIT chief had further damaged its credibility.

Also read: Congress demands Champat Rai's arrest, PM Modi's apology over Ram Temple donation row

Naim said a person facing allegations of cheating and forgery would struggle to command public confidence while investigating allegations involving public donations.

She also questioned whether the authorities that constituted the SIT were aware of the pending case or whether adequate background checks had been carried out before the appointment.

Political ploy?

Pradhan argued that SITs are often constituted to produce "tailor-made reports", adding that he had expressed similar concerns when the concerned SIT was first announced.

He suggested that the SIT was formed in haste and alleged that political considerations played a role in its constitution. According to him, the controversy surrounding Pant's appointment has now raised broader questions about the intent behind the investigation.

He also referred to Pant's role during the Maha Kumbh stampede in 2025, recalling the viral video in which the officer addressed devotees through a loudspeaker before the incident.

Pradhan claimed that an officer facing such allegations should have declined the responsibility of leading an investigation connected with the Ram Temple.

Legal implications

Tripathi said the investigation lacked credibility from the very beginning. According to him, the manner in which the SIT was constituted violated the basic principles of criminal investigation. He alleged that the appointment reflected a pattern of selecting officers who would be politically compliant.

Tripathi claimed that if the allegations against Pant are correct, they further weaken public confidence in the investigation. He said the government would have been aware of the FIR before making the appointment.

He also criticised the structure of the investigation, alleging that the same institution was effectively acting as complainant, investigator and decision-maker.

Court proceedings

Pradhan referred to the court proceedings connected with the 2019 FIR discussed during the programme.

According to him, the FIR arose after judicial intervention in a dispute related to an electricity department contract. He claimed that the police had twice filed closure reports giving Pant a clean chit, but the chief judicial magistrate refused to accept those reports, resulting in the matter remaining pending.

Naim said regardless of the eventual outcome of the investigation, public confidence in the SIT had already suffered.

She said the government appeared more interested in responding to public outrage than in conducting a transparent investigation into the alleged theft of donations.

Also read: Ram temple theft: With RSS-BJP cornered, will Congress seize the moment?

According to her, appointing an officer against whom allegations already existed only strengthened suspicions that the inquiry lacked independence.

Pradhan echoed those concerns, saying the government may eventually have to replace Pant if political pressure continues to mount. He suggested that future developments would indicate whether the state government or the leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is in power in Lucknow, sought to distance itself from the controversy.

Political fallout

The panel also discussed the possible political consequences if the allegations continue to dominate public discourse. Pradhan suggested that the controversy could become another flashpoint between Lucknow and New Delhi.

The discussion concluded with the panel agreeing that the allegations have intensified scrutiny of the Ram Temple donation-theft investigation and raised fresh questions about the government's handling of the matter.