Here is why Allahabad High Court refused to entertain plea for CBI probe into Ram Mandir donation theft

The Allahabad High Court recently declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged misappropriation of donations at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. A Division Bench of Justice Rajan Rai and Justice Manjive Shukla disposed of the plea, citing the pendency of similar petitions before the Supreme Court. This decision underscores the principle of judicial comity and the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, particularly when higher courts are already seized of the matter. The ruling highlights the discretionary nature of ordering CBI investigations, especially when state police are actively investigating, and sets a precedent for how courts may exercise restraint in cases with overlapping jurisdiction.

In a significant development concerning the financial integrity of a prominent religious institution, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, recently refused to direct a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into alleged donation theft at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. The petition, filed by advocate Mohit Ashok, sought a CBI probe and a comprehensive audit of the Trust's accounts amidst reports of misappropriation of devotee offerings. This judicial stance, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Rai and Justice Manjive Shukla, was primarily predicated on the fact that similar prayers for investigation are already pending before the Supreme Court of India.

The decision by the Allahabad High Court is not merely a procedural dismissal but a reflection of established legal principles governing judicial discretion, particularly the doctrine of judicial comity and the imperative to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The case has garnered considerable public attention due to the national significance of the Ram Mandir project and the public trust reposed in the donations. For legal practitioners, this ruling offers crucial insights into the strategic considerations courts employ when faced with parallel litigation concerning high-profile matters, emphasizing the hierarchy of courts and the judicious allocation of investigative resources.

This article will delve into the background of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the nature of the allegations, the specific reasons articulated by the Allahabad High Court for its refusal, and the broader legal framework governing the ordering of CBI investigations in India. It will also examine the implications of the Supreme Court's existing engagement with the issue and the practical takeaways for attorneys navigating complex public interest litigations.

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust was constituted by the Central Government on February 5, 2020, following the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the Ayodhya land dispute case in November 2019. The Trust was established to oversee the construction and management of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, a project of immense religious and cultural importance in India. Its legal foundation is unique, deriving from the Supreme Court's directive, the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, a Central government scheme, and the Trust deed, rather than a dedicated state statute.

Allegations of misappropriation of donations at the Ram Mandir surfaced, leading to public outcry and demands for a thorough investigation. These allegations prompted the Uttar Pradesh government to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter. Subsequently, an FIR was registered on June 25, 2026, based on a complaint by a member of the Trust, leading to the arrest of eight individuals allegedly involved in the theft. Reports indicate that approximately ₹79-80 lakh has been recovered from seven of the arrested accused.

In the Indian legal system, criminal investigations are primarily conducted by the state police under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), with Section 156 empowering police officers to investigate cognizable offenses without a magistrate's order. However, constitutional courts, namely the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, possess extraordinary powers to direct a CBI investigation. This power is generally exercised in exceptional circumstances, such as when there are serious allegations of bias, malafide intent, or a lack of credibility in the local police investigation, or when the case involves complex inter-state or national ramifications.

The Allahabad High Court's decision to refuse the CBI probe into the Ram Mandir donation theft was rooted in the principle of judicial comity and the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. The Court noted that similar petitions, seeking comparable reliefs, were already pending before the Supreme Court. This approach reflects a well-established judicial practice where courts, particularly those of concurrent jurisdiction, refrain from adjudicating matters that are actively being considered by a higher or another competent court to prevent conflicting judgments, conserve judicial resources, and ensure an orderly administration of justice.

Two significant petitions are currently before the Supreme Court concerning the alleged irregularities. Advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav filed a petition seeking the constitution of a multi-disciplinary Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by the CBI, along with directions for the preservation of electronic evidence and records. While a vacation bench of the Supreme Court declined urgent listing of this plea, it acknowledged the matter and directed the petitioners to furnish a copy to the registry for consideration in due course. Separately, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Member of Parliament Sudhakar Singh filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a CBI probe, a comprehensive forensic audit of the Trust's finances, and the disclosure of all donations received since its inception.

The High Court's decision aligns with the Supreme Court's consistent caution against ordering CBI investigations as a matter of routine. The apex court has repeatedly held that such directives should be a measure of last resort, justified only when the constitutional court is convinced that the integrity of the investigative process by state agencies has been compromised, or in cases of systemic failure, involvement of high-ranking officials, or politically influential persons. In the present case, with the Uttar Pradesh Police's SIT actively investigating and having made arrests and recoveries, the Allahabad High Court likely found no compelling exceptional circumstances to override the ongoing state-level probe, especially given the Supreme Court's prior engagement with the broader issue.

The differing scope of the petitions before the Supreme Court—one focusing on evidence preservation and a CBI-led SIT, and the other on a broader financial audit and oversight—suggests that the apex court is seized of various facets of the alleged irregularities. The Allahabad High Court's refusal, therefore, serves to consolidate the judicial oversight of this sensitive matter at the highest level, ensuring a unified approach to the investigation and accountability of the Trust. This judicial restraint prevents a fragmented approach to a matter of national interest and reinforces the hierarchical structure of the Indian judiciary.

The Allahabad High Court's refusal to order a CBI probe into the Ram Mandir donation theft, primarily due to the pendency of similar matters before the Supreme Court, offers valuable lessons for legal practitioners. It underscores the importance of understanding judicial hierarchy and the principle of judicial comity, which dictates that courts should avoid entertaining matters already seized by a higher court or a court of coordinate jurisdiction to prevent conflicting orders and ensure judicial efficiency. Practitioners contemplating public interest litigations or seeking extraordinary remedies must meticulously assess the landscape of ongoing legal proceedings to strategically position their pleas.

Looking ahead, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court as it considers the pending petitions. The apex court's eventual directions, whether for a CBI probe, a court-monitored investigation, a forensic audit, or the establishment of an oversight mechanism, will have significant implications for the transparency and accountability of large public trusts, particularly those managing substantial public donations. Legal professionals should closely monitor these developments, as the Supreme Court's pronouncements will likely shape future jurisprudence on judicial intervention in the administration and financial oversight of religious and charitable institutions of national importance.