Supreme Court cautions against politicising Ram Temple fund row, asks Uttar Pradesh to consider SIT probe

The Supreme Court in New Delhi, sitting as a three‑judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, took a firm stance on the Ram Mandir donation controversy on 20 July 2026. Alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, the court warned that the matter should not be used as a launch‑pad for political point‑scoring.

“Don’t politicise the issue,” the Chief Justice said, adding that courts are not a forum for political grandstanding. He reminded the counsel that the case is essentially about whether a crime was committed and that the judiciary’s role is simply to ensure a proper investigation.

Three public‑interest litigations were before the bench. The first was filed by Narendra Kumar Goswami, seeking a CBI probe, a CAG audit and a forensic examination of the accounts. The second petition, from Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, asked for identical reliefs. The third, raised by RJD MP Sudhakar Singh, specifically demanded a forensic audit of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust that manages the Ayodhya temple.

Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the petitioners, urged that donation receipts be preserved and posted online for public scrutiny. Representing Uttar Pradesh, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that an SIT had already been set up earlier and that the police investigation was ongoing – eight arrests had been made and about ₹80 lakh recovered.

The bench asked the state whether the existing SIT could be tasked with the full probe, effectively opening the door for a more focused, perhaps independent, inquiry. It also recalled that on 13 July the court had directed the Uttar Pradesh police to file a status report and had issued a notice to the Trust.

While no final order was handed down, the judges scheduled a further hearing for 27 July to consider the government’s response on the SIT option. The message was clear: the court will keep a close eye on the investigation, but it expects all stakeholders to keep the debate out of the political arena.