Don't do politics, let probe reach logical end: SC to hear Ram temple case next week

Published 20 July 2026 · local

The Supreme Court on Monday said it wanted the investigation into the theft of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya to reach a "logical

The Supreme Court on Monday said it wanted the investigation into the theft of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya to reach a "logical end" and cautioned parties against politicising the issue, as it heard a batch of pleas seeking a fair and time-bound probe into the matter. The court will hear the matter again on July 27. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, that a status report had been filed in compliance with the court's earlier directions and that the investigation was progressing. Read Full Story Mehta told the court that eight people had been arrested so far in connection with the case. "Investigation is going on. I cannot reveal much at this stage. The SIT was constituted to give an opinion on whether a cognisable offence existed; the state police are conducting the investigation," he said. During the hearing, the bench observed that the matter essentially concerned the investigation of an alleged crime and stressed that the court's focus was to ensure a proper and credible probe. "It is a simple case of commission of crime. We are just to ensure proper investigation," the bench said. Kant repeatedly urged all stakeholders not to turn the matter into a political controversy.

"We are being cautious. Don't politicise the issue. We just want the investigation to reach a logical end," the said, adding that courts were not a forum for political battles. The hearing also saw a discussion on the role of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government. Responding to the court's queries, the Solicitor General said the SIT consisted of Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, Special Secretary (Finance) Neel Ratan and Inspector General of Police Kiran S. However, Mehta clarified that the SIT itself was not conducting the investigation. "Instead, it had been constituted to examine whether a cognisable offence was made out and to give its opinion, following which the state police carried out the actual investigation," he said. Mehta's clarification prompted the bench to suggest that the SIT could be reconstituted and entrusted with overseeing or conducting the ongoing investigation itself. The court noted that the panel already included senior officers and suggested that the investigation could be headed by a senior IPS officer who is a part of the SIT. "There are two IAS officers and one senior IPS officer. Let there be an SIT for the ongoing investigation," the bench observed. Kant suggested that the state consider reconstituting the SIT with senior and specialised officers so that the probe could proceed in a more effective manner and reach a conclusive stage.