Ram Temple Donation Row Sparks Political Storm: Missing Funds Claims, SIT Probe and Opposition’s ‘Ghazni’ Attack Explained

A political and legal battle has erupted over allegations of financial irregularities involving donations made by devotees at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. Claims that several crores of rupees may have been stolen or misappropriated have sparked demands for a high-level investigation, fierce exchanges between political parties, and intense public scrutiny of the temple administration.

New rules on animal testing must take India forward, not backwards: Maneka Gandhi Officials maintain the changes seek to simplify approvals for research institutions, pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. Updated on: Oct 26, 2026, 14:54:47 IST By Jasjeev Gandhiok Prefer HTPrefer HT Prefer HT on Google Share The Centre’s draft rules governing animal experimentation have triggered concerns among animal rights groups, which say the changes could weaken independent oversight and make it easier for laboratories to conduct experiments on animals. However, officials maintain the changes seek to simplify approvals for research institutions, pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. Former Union minister Maneka Gandhi. Former Union minister Maneka Gandhi. HT speaks to animal rights activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi, a long-time campaigner against animal experimentation. Edited excerpts: A major change to animal experimentation, proposed in the draft, is that mild and moderate experiments could be approved by an institution’s own ethics committee rather than going to the central regulator. In practical terms, what does this change mean for an animal inside a laboratory? Does it make it easier for more animals to be experimented on? It means the animal loses the one independent pair of eyes that was looking at its fate. Today, experiments on animals larger than a rat go to the central regulator, and there is at least someone outside the building asking whether this experiment is necessary at all. Under the draft, the people who want to do the experiment, their colleagues and their department heads will be the ones approving it. And it is the institution itself, through its own veterinarian, that decides whether the experiment is mild or moderate in the first place. No institution has ever turned down its own funding. So yes, it will make it easier, and it will make it faster, and that means more animals. Mild and moderate are also the bulk of experiments, so we are effectively handing over most of animal experimentation in India to self regulation. The draft classifies experiments as mild, moderate, severe and non-recovery. Is there a concern that the institution conducting the research will effectively decide how severe the experiment is. Does this leave a grey area? It isn’t grey, it is completely black. Under this draft, the institution that wants to do the experiment is also the one that decides which category it falls into. That decision matters enormously, because if the experiment is classified as mild or moderate, the institution’s own committee approves it and it never goes to the central regulator. Only severe and non-recovery experiments on larger animals go outside. So the same people who want the experiment approved are deciding whether anyone independent will ever examine it. That is a clear conflict of interest, and it will push experiments towards the lower categories. Starving a rat for a day is called mild. Keeping a social animal alone in a cage is mild. Starving it for two days, or putting it through distress it cannot escape, is moderate. So is testing herbal products, testing established drugs, and anything described as having “known and reversible effects,” which could mean almost anything. This is not a scientific list. It is the most common commercial work. The draft also creates exceptions and allows laboratories to use animals from open markets, unregistered sources, and in certain circumstances, stray, feral, wild and protected animals. What is the biggest risk that this may create for animals in practice? Could community dogs, lost pets or animals taken from the wild find their way into laboratories? The biggest risk is that nobody will know where an animal came from. The whole point of registered breeders was traceability. Once you allow open markets and unregistered sources for cattle, goats, birds and fish, you create a demand, and in this country demand is met very quickly by people who will pick up anything. Strays and wild animals can be used if a “competent authority” permits it, and the draft never says who that is. Community dogs, someone’s lost pet, birds from illegal markets, all of it can find its way into a laboratory. These exceptions should be removed completely. If a lab cannot get an animal from a registered source, it should not be doing that experiment. The draft formally incorporates the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement, but critics say these safeguards become weaker if institutions themselves are approving experiments. Do you believe India should now be moving towards replacing animal experiments altogether, particularly when the health ministry has already allowed certain drug testing through non-animal methods? What should the rules do differently? Yes, and we are not starting from zero. The health ministry has already amended the drug rules to accept non-animal methods. The world is moving this way because these methods are often more predictive for humans than a mouse ever was. Writing replacement, reduction and refinement into the rules means nothing if the person checking compliance is the institution itself. The rules should make it mandatory to show that no validated alternative exists before an animal is used, set up a national body to validate and promote alternatives, put money into them, and set timelines to phase out animal use in areas where alternatives are already available. A rule that only mentions replacement as a principle is decoration. You have worked on animal experimentation regulation for decades. What specific changes would you want the government to make to this draft? I don’t think this draft can be fixed. There is hardly a provision in it that doesn’t need changing, and when everything needs to change, it is better to start again. So the draft should be put aside and written afresh, this time with independent scientists, animal welfare organisations and legal experts at the table. The new rules must take India forward, not backwards. Animals already have certain protections under the law which cannot be taken away. New should be building on them.

Orissa High Court Rules SC/ST Status Cannot Be Carried Across State Borders

Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response to Challenge Against Chhattisgarh Anti-Conversion Law

The controversy began after former Samajwadi Party MLA Pawan Pandey alleged that between ₹7 crore and ₹7.5 crore collected through donations at the Ram Temple had either gone missing or been embezzled. The allegations quickly gained traction, prompting opposition leaders to question the management of temple funds and call for greater transparency from those overseeing the shrine’s finances.

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust has strongly denied all accusations. Trust representatives, including General Secretary Champat Rai and member Mahant Dinendra Das Maharaj, have maintained that all donations and expenditures are properly documented and audited. According to the Trust, there is no evidence of financial wrongdoing and all transactions have been handled in accordance with established procedures.

The matter soon reached the courts after advocate Mohit Ashok filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking an independent investigation. The petitioner has called for a Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry into financial and land-related transactions connected to the Ram Temple project. He has also demanded a comprehensive audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and a forensic examination of the Trust’s finances since its inception.

In response to the growing controversy, the Uttar Pradesh government constituted a three-member Special Investigation Team on June 14. The SIT comprises senior administrative, police and finance officials and has been tasked with conducting a detailed probe into the allegations. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has defended the move, stressing that the investigation was initiated following a request from the Trust itself.

However, the SIT has also come under criticism. The petitioner has questioned whether the team has the legal authority to investigate the Trust and has argued that there is no clear mechanism for whistleblowers or witnesses to submit evidence. These concerns have fuelled demands for a probe by central agencies instead.

Opposition parties have used the controversy to target the BJP government. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav has sought an impartial inquiry and questioned the state government’s handling of the issue. Shiv Sena (UBT) launched an even sharper attack, comparing the alleged incident to historical temple lootings and accusing the BJP of failing to protect funds donated by devotees. Party MP Sanjay Raut claimed CCTV footage showed a large-scale theft and demanded accountability from both state and central governments.

The Aam Aadmi Party has also raised questions, with leaders asking why no criminal cases have been registered despite serious allegations involving large sums of money. They have accused authorities of shielding influential individuals and delaying action.

The BJP has rejected the opposition’s allegations, describing them as politically motivated attempts to malign the Ram Temple and the state government. Union Minister Giriraj Singh accused opposition leaders of exploiting the issue for electoral gains and insisted that anyone found guilty would face strict action.

Addressing the controversy, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath urged people not to jump to conclusions before the investigation is completed. He appealed to anyone possessing documentary evidence to submit it to the SIT and famously remarked that devotees had waited 500 years for the temple and could wait another 15 days for the truth to emerge. He also warned against misinformation campaigns aimed at tarnishing Ayodhya’s image and hurting the sentiments of devotees.

For now, the allegations remain unproven. The Trust continues to deny any wrongdoing, while the SIT probe is ongoing. The findings of the investigation are expected to determine whether the controversy is rooted in fact or political accusation, making the upcoming report one of the most closely watched developments in Ayodhya in recent years.