The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing allegations of misappropriation and irregularities concerning donations collected for the construction of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir to consider suggestions placed before it by litigants and other bonafide, public-spirited citizens.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued the direction while hearing petitions seeking an independent investigation, including a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), into the alleged diversion and misappropriation of funds associated with the temple project.
The Court permitted the petitioners, as well as other persons acting bona fide and in the public interest, to communicate specific aspects of the matter which, in their assessment, warrant further investigation or closer scrutiny by the SIT. Such suggestions are to be submitted to the office of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, which would thereafter transmit them to the investigating team for appropriate consideration.
The direction assumes significance in the context of the Supreme Court’s continuing judicial oversight of the investigation. While the Court has, at this stage, refrained from transferring the probe to the CBI, it has retained supervisory jurisdiction over the SIT and has required the investigating agency to periodically place its progress before the apex court.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for one of the petitioners sought access to relevant investigative material, contending that disclosure of such material was necessary to enable the litigants to effectively assist the Court in assessing the probe. The Solicitor General opposed the request, pointing out that disclosure of material collected during an ongoing investigation could potentially compromise the investigative process.
The Bench ultimately fashioned a middle path, permitting the litigants and genuinely public-spirited citizens to identify specific facets of the allegations or investigation which, in their view, require examination, without directing wholesale disclosure of the case material.
The Court indicated that such inputs would be considered by the SIT in accordance with law and that the investigating agency would remain at liberty to determine the course of investigation on the basis of the material available to it.
Chief Justice Surya Kant further indicated that the Court would intervene if the investigation was found to be deficient or lacking in any material respect. At the same time, where the SIT demonstrates that the investigation has been conducted fairly, comprehensively and in accordance with law, there would be no occasion for unnecessary judicial interference.
The Bench has also maintained a mechanism of direct judicial monitoring by requiring the SIT to submit its status report before the Supreme Court. The report is initially to be placed in sealed cover, following which the Court would determine the extent to which its contents may be disclosed to the parties.
The arrangement reflects the Court’s attempt to strike a delicate equilibrium between two competing considerations: ensuring transparency and accountability in an investigation concerning matters of considerable public interest, while simultaneously safeguarding the confidentiality and evidentiary integrity of an ongoing criminal probe.
The petitions before the Supreme Court arise from allegations concerning the alleged misappropriation, diversion or other financial irregularities in relation to donations collected for the construction of the Ram Mandir. The allegations have prompted demands for an investigation by an independent central agency, with the petitioners questioning whether the existing investigation is sufficiently comprehensive and impartial.
The Supreme Court, however, has so far declined to substitute the SIT with the CBI, choosing instead to monitor the progress of the investigation and assess its adequacy through periodic status reports.
The Court has previously cautioned against allowing the proceedings to acquire a political complexion, stressing that the judicial inquiry is confined to the alleged commission of offences and the requirement of a lawful, credible and effective investigation.
The latest order consequently does not adjudicate upon the merits or veracity of the allegations. Nor does it record any finding of culpability against any individual or institution associated with the temple project. Its immediate effect is procedural: it creates a channel through which legitimate investigative concerns can be brought to the notice of the SIT while preserving the confidentiality inherent in an ongoing criminal investigation.
The Court’s approach also underscores the distinction between judicial supervision and investigative control. While the apex court has retained the authority to ensure that the investigation is conducted fairly and effectively, the actual collection and assessment of evidence remain within the statutory domain of the investigating agency.
The forthcoming SIT status report is therefore likely to assume considerable significance. Depending upon the material placed before it, the Supreme Court may determine whether the investigation has satisfactorily addressed the allegations or whether further directions, including additional investigative measures, are warranted.
For the present, the Court has opted for calibrated judicial oversight rather than wholesale transfer of the investigation, while ensuring that bona fide concerns raised in the public interest are not excluded from the investigative process.
The post Ram Mandir donation theft case: Supreme Court directs SIT to consider suggestions from litigants, bonafide public-spirited citizens appeared first on India Legal.