Introduction

The recent controversy concerning alleged irregularities and misappropriation of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has attracted nationwide attention. In response to allegations of missing donations and financial mismanagement, the Uttar Pradesh Government constituted a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) even before any formal First Information Report (FIR) was reportedly registered. The SIT has since conducted an extensive inquiry and submitted its preliminary findings to the State Government.

While the allegations themselves are serious, an equally significant legal question arises: Can a criminal investigation by an SIT commence before the registration of an FIR? More importantly, does such a course conform to the criminal justice framework established under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and the constitutional principles governing criminal investigations?

The issue deserves careful examination because it concerns not merely one controversy but the larger question of whether procedural safeguards can be bypassed when dealing with politically or socially sensitive matters.

The Centrality of FIR in Criminal Investigation

Under Indian criminal jurisprudence, the registration of an FIR by informant written or orally is considered to be the starting point of a cognizable criminal investigation.

The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh held that registration of an FIR is mandatory whenever information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court recognized only limited categories where a preliminary inquiry may be conducted before registration but formal complaint is mandatory.

The rationale behind this requirement is simple. An FIR creates an official record of allegations, identifies accused persons, fixes accountability, triggers statutory safeguards and ensures judicial oversight. It prevents investigations from becoming opaque executive exercise conducted without legal foundation.

In ordinary criminal cases involving theft, embezzlement, criminal breach of trust or misappropriation of funds, the police are expected to first register an FIR and then proceed with investigation. The investigative process derives its legitimacy from the FIR itself.

Therefore, when a State-appointed SIT begins examining records, questions witnesses, scrutinizes bank documents and collecting evidence before an FIR is lodged, a legitimate legal debate emerges regarding the source of its authority.

Is the SIT Conducting an “Investigation” or a “Preliminary Inquiry”?

Supporters of the State's approach may argue that the SIT was merely conducting a fact-finding exercise or preliminary inquiry.

Indeed, the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari acknowledged that a limited preliminary inquiry may be permissible in exceptional situations, particularly in cases involving commercial transactions, corruption allegations, medical negligence, or situations where verification of facts is necessary before determining whether a cognizable offence is disclosed but even that can be done only after receipt of formal information of offence.

The State Government may therefore contend that the SIT was not conducting a statutory criminal investigation but merely verifying allegations before deciding whether an FIR should be registered.

However, this defence raises another concern.

A preliminary inquiry is intended to be limited in scope and duration. It is not meant to become a substitute for a full-fledged criminal investigation. If an SIT examines extensive documentary records, interrogates numerous individuals, inspects financial transactions, reviews CCTV footage and prepares detailed findings regarding culpability, the distinction between a preliminary inquiry and an investigation begins to blur.

Reports indicate that the SIT questioned multiple individuals, examined records, scrutinized financial transactions, and ultimately recommended registration of FIRs against suspects.

Such extensive activities resemble an investigation more than a mere preliminary verification exercise.

The Risk of Creating a Parallel Criminal Process

One of the principal concerns arising from pre-FIR SIT inquiries is the creation of a parallel criminal process outside the statutory framework.

The criminal procedure code—and now the BNSS—contains a carefully designed sequence:
1.    Receipt of information.
2.    Registration of FIR.
3.    Investigation.
4.    Collection of evidence.
5.    Arrest, if necessary.
6.    Filing of final report before a Magistrate.

This sequence is not a technicality. It protects both the complainant and the accused.

When an SIT conducts a detailed inquiry before an FIR exists, several questions arise:
•    What statutory powers are being exercised?
•    Under which provision are witnesses being questioned?
•    What legal status do statements recorded before the SIT possess?
•    Who supervises the inquiry?
•    What judicial remedies are available against procedural irregularities?

The absence of clear answers risks undermining procedural transparency.

Equality Before Law and Selective Procedure

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.

An ordinary citizen accused of theft or misappropriation would ordinarily face immediate registration of an FIR followed by investigation. The same criminal law machinery would become operational without delay.

When a matter involving a high-profile institution instead witnesses the constitution of a special inquiry mechanism before registration of any FIR, questions of equal treatment inevitably arise.

The issue is not whether the temple trust should be protected or targeted. The issue is whether identical legal standards should apply irrespective of the identity of the institution involved.

The legitimacy of any investigation depends not only on its outcome but also on public confidence that the process followed is the same for everyone.

Could Evidence Be Compromised?

Another concern relates to preservation of evidence.

The purpose of an FIR is not merely formal. It activates legal mechanisms for seizure, forensic examination, digital preservation, and judicial oversight.

Where allegations concern financial records, CCTV footage, accounting documents, donation registers, and electronic data, delays in formal criminal proceedings can potentially affect the integrity of evidence.

Critics may therefore argue that if allegations were sufficiently serious to warrant an SIT, they were serious enough to justify prompt registration of an FIR followed by a lawful investigation so as to prevent the culprits from tampering with evidence.

The Government's Counter-Argument

A balanced analysis must acknowledge the State Government's possible justification.

The allegations involved a highly sensitive religious institution that attracts millions of devotees. The Government may contend that immediate registration of an FIR without verification could have generated unnecessary controversy and public unrest.

Moreover, the SIT was reportedly constituted following a request from the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust itself, suggesting that the inquiry was intended to establish facts objectively before criminal proceedings were initiated.

The State may therefore argue that the SIT's role was preventive and fact-finding rather than investigative in the strict legal sense.

Nevertheless, such considerations cannot permanently replace statutory criminal procedures.

Conclusion

The Ram Mandir donation controversy presents an important constitutional question extending far beyond the facts of a single case. The controversy forces us to examine whether criminal investigations can effectively begin before an FIR is registered and whether executive fact-finding mechanisms can substitute the procedures contemplated by criminal law.

Regardless of one's political or ideological position, the rule of law demands consistency. If allegations disclose a cognizable offence, the ordinary criminal process should ordinarily follow. If a preliminary inquiry is necessary, it must remain narrowly tailored and limited in duration.

The true test of constitutional governance is not how the law operates in ordinary cases but how faithfully it is followed in matters involving powerful institutions, public sentiment, and political sensitivity.

The Ram Mandir donation controversy therefore serves as a reminder that public faith in institutions is strengthened not by exceptional procedures, but by adherence to ordinary legal principles. In a constitutional democracy, transparency and procedural fairness are not obstacles to justice; they are its foundation.

Share this News