The Ayodhya SIT probe into the alleged Ram temple donation theft has identified serious weaknesses in donation counting, employee monitoring, cash auditing and physical security. Investigators believe repeated violations of established procedures left the system vulnerable to alleged financial misconduct.
Ayodhya SIT Probe Identifies Security Lapses
The Special Investigation Team examining alleged irregularities at the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple has reportedly documented nine major procedural and security failures. The preliminary findings suggest that the problem was not caused by one isolated breach. Instead, several safeguards designed to protect temple donations were either ignored, inconsistently applied or missing altogether.
The investigation remains underway, and responsibility has not been finally determined. However, the preliminary SIT findings indicate that weaknesses across multiple stages of the donation-handling process may have allowed suspicious activity to continue without timely detection.
Donation Counting Rules Were Not Enforced
Investigators found that employees entering and leaving the cash-counting hall were allegedly not frisked consistently. The counting staff were also not required to wear pocketless uniforms, a standard precaution that can reduce opportunities to conceal loose notes or bundles of cash.
Personal belongings, including bags, were reportedly allowed inside the counting area even though such items should ordinarily be restricted in a high-security cash-handling facility. The absence of strict entry and exit checks weakened accountability and made it harder to establish whether money had been removed without authorisation.
The SIT also examined broader monitoring failures, including gaps in CCTV supervision and inadequate enforcement of security protocols. CCTV footage reportedly forms part of the preliminary evidence being assessed by investigators in the temple fund probe.
Cash Audit and Hundi Records Showed Gaps
The probe found major weaknesses in the way money from temple donation boxes, commonly known as hundis, was counted and documented. Collections from different donation boxes were allegedly mixed before counting instead of being processed separately.
This practice prevented officials from comparing the recorded amount from each hundi with the cash eventually counted and deposited. Without separate hundi records, investigators and auditors could not easily identify where a discrepancy had occurred.
The SIT also reportedly found that denomination-wise statements, counting vouchers and certification records were either unavailable or inadequately maintained. Such documents should record the number of notes received in each denomination, the total amount counted and the amount transferred for deposit.
Their absence made independent verification difficult and reduced the effectiveness of the cash audit system.
Biometric Attendance and Oversight Failed
Employee attendance during donation-counting sessions was another area of concern. Biometric attendance for counting staff was reportedly not implemented properly or was followed inconsistently.
As a result, authorities could not reliably determine which employees had participated in specific counting sessions. This created an important accountability gap because investigators could not easily connect individuals with particular batches of donations or periods covered by surveillance footage.
Supervisory controls also appear to have been inadequate. A secure donation system requires authorised staff, documented handovers, continuous camera monitoring, independent verification and clear responsibility at every stage. The preliminary findings suggest that several of these checks did not function as intended.
Investigation Focuses on Stronger Safeguards
The SIT’s findings point to a broader failure of financial safeguards rather than a single mistake by one employee. Weak entry checks, mixed hundi collections, missing vouchers, poor attendance records and inadequate supervision collectively reduced transparency in the donation-counting process.
Authorities are continuing to examine the alleged theft, the role of employees and supervisors, financial transactions and available surveillance records. The final findings will be important in establishing individual responsibility and determining the full scale of any losses.
The case also underlines the need for stronger cash-handling rules at major religious institutions. Pocketless uniforms, double-layer frisking, restricted personal belongings, continuous CCTV monitoring, biometric attendance, separate hundi counting and independently certified deposit records could help prevent similar failures and restore public confidence in temple donation management.
