Ram Temple theft: 'SC can shift SIT probe only if it finds fault in probe'

The investigation into the Ayodhya Ram Temple donation scam is not being done transparently, and the entire probe raises many legal questions, advocate Kapil Madan said on the latest episode of AI With Sanket on Tuesday (July 14).

Supreme Court lawyer Ashutosh Srivastava, the other panellist on The Federal's show, explained what factors the apex court would examine to determine whether the case warranted transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

As the Supreme Court examines the progress of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe, the debate has shifted from allegations of financial misconduct to whether the investigation itself inspires public confidence.

Also read: Why there's some optimism around SC's handling of Ram Temple donation row

The panellists shared their views on whether judicial monitoring is sufficient or if the case should be handed over to the CBI.

Investigation under scrutiny

Madan argued that several aspects of the investigation appeared unusual. He pointed out that, according to information available in the public domain, the police did not seek custodial remand for the accused after their arrest.

According to Madan, this was significant because police remand is generally sought when investigators require further interrogation or recovery of evidence. In his view, bypassing that process raises legitimate questions about the course of the investigation.

Missing charge sheet

Madan further argued that if investigators believed the probe was substantially complete, a charge sheet should have followed.

Also read: Ram Mandir scandal has snapped RSS's moral authority: Political theorist Pradip K Datta

Instead, he observed that neither a police remand had been sought nor a charge sheet filed, leaving the public with limited clarity about the progress of the investigation. He also noted that the SIT report had not been made public, making it difficult to assess the direction of the probe.

Given that the allegations involve donations made by devotees, Madan said transparency becomes even more important because the issue extends beyond criminal law into public faith.

Supreme Court's role

Srivastava said the apex court has already begun examining the matter by seeking a status report from the SIT.

He explained that multiple petitions seeking a CBI investigation had been filed before the court. Before deciding whether to transfer the investigation, the court would first assess whether the SIT's probe had been satisfactory.

Srivastava said the SIT had reportedly frozen around 30 bank accounts linked to the accused and would likely explain before the court how much money had been traced, recovered and where the funds had ultimately gone.

More than arrests

According to Srivastava, the Supreme Court would also evaluate whether the individuals arrested were the only people involved or whether the investigation needed to be widened.

He said investigators would need to establish whether the allegedly diverted funds had been converted into movable or immovable assets or routed through benami transactions.

Only after examining these findings, he argued, would the Supreme Court be in a position to determine whether the case warranted transfer to another agency.

Need for confidence

Madan said situations of this nature require institutions to inspire confidence among citizens.

He argued that where influential office-bearers continue to occupy important positions, doubts about impartiality become unavoidable.

Drawing comparisons with earlier high-profile investigations, he referred to the Supreme Court's monitoring of the 2G spectrum case and suggested that judicial oversight could similarly strengthen public trust in the present investigation.

Judicial monitoring

According to Madan, one option before the Supreme Court is to allow the investigation to continue while directly monitoring its progress.

Such monitoring, he said, would reassure citizens that no individual, irrespective of political influence or organisational stature, receives preferential treatment.

He maintained that court supervision could be exercised regardless of whether the investigation remained with the SIT or was eventually transferred to the CBI.

Supreme Court's assessment

Srivastava agreed that the Supreme Court appeared conscious of the seriousness of the allegations.

He said the court's decision to issue notices and call for a detailed status report itself reflected the importance it attached to the matter.

However, he cautioned that transferring an investigation already underway requires convincing evidence that the existing probe is fundamentally flawed or biased.

Call for specialised probe

Madan said experience showed that powerful individuals could influence witnesses or obstruct investigations if adequate safeguards were not in place.

For that reason, he reiterated his preference for a specialised investigative agency functioning under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court.

He argued that every beneficiary of any alleged wrongdoing should be investigated, irrespective of status or political connections, because the credibility of both the investigation and the institution depended upon complete accountability.

SC's next hearing crucial

Throughout the discussion, both legal experts agreed that the Supreme Court's next hearing would be crucial in determining the future course of the investigation.

While Srivastava maintained that the apex court should first evaluate the SIT's status report before deciding on a transfer to the CBI, Madan argued that the circumstances already warranted greater judicial intervention to ensure complete transparency.

Srivastava cautioned against prematurely concluding that the SIT had failed. He said the Supreme Court would first assess whether the investigation had covered all necessary aspects, including tracing allegedly diverted funds, identifying possible beneficiaries, and examining whether additional individuals needed to be brought under the scope of the probe.

The panel agreed that the Supreme Court's scrutiny of the SIT report would determine whether additional directions are sufficient or whether the extraordinary step of handing over the investigation to the CBI becomes necessary.