The inside story of the break-in at the Ram Mandir: Rules were strict, cameras were on, yet…

Ayodhya: The SIT investigating the Ram Temple donation theft case found in its preliminary report that all six accused—Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, and Ramashankar Mishra—had been recruited based on recommendations from Trust officials.

They were inducted into the donation-counting staff through ‘Sainik Security Services,’ an agency outsourced by the State Bank of India. These appointments ran completely counter to the spirit of the operational guidelines jointly formulated by the Trust and the SBI. According to the SIT, there was no lack of rules; rather, the theft occurred due to a failure to properly implement established security procedures.

Entry Gained Through an Uncle’s Influential Recommendation
The SIT report specifically highlights the appointment of the accused, Manish Kumar Yadav. Manish was recommended by his uncle, Ramashankar Yadav (alias Tinnu), who wielded significant influence over the donation-counting process. It was at Tinnu’s behest that Manish handed over documents to SBI employee Ratnesh Chaturvedi and gained entry into the counting room on April 15, 2026.

CCTV Footage Exposed the Theft
Once inside the counting room, the illicit activities of the accused, Manish Kumar Yadav, could not remain hidden for long. According to the SIT, CCTV footage recorded after May 11, 2026, clearly showed Manish repeatedly stealing donation money. This raised serious questions regarding the security arrangements and surveillance protocols.

Pre-established Strict Rules Were Ignored
A formal Memorandum of Understanding and Standard Operating Procedures regarding donation management had been established between the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust and the SBI. Under these rules—signed by the then SBI Branch Manager Govind Mishra and Trust representative Dr. Anil Mishra—measures such as biometric attendance, specific uniforms, security frisking, and CCTV surveillance were mandatory.

Investigation Exposes Flaws in Security Claims
The SIT found that the Standard Operating Procedure for February 2025 mandated regular and surprise frisking of the counting staff. Despite the Trust bearing the responsibility for maintaining transparency, these security measures were either completely ignored or implemented very poorly, thereby providing the accused with an opportunity to commit theft.