While making a public show of โfully cooperating with the SITโ, trust officials have sought to leverage its autonomous, independent status to ringfence information. They have even tried to deflect administrative blame, and are using the ongoing SIT probe to stonewall nosey journalists.
In his statements to the SIT, trust general-secretary Champat Rai (who has since resigned) has reportedly sought to distance the trust hierarchy from the theft by blaming the State Bank of India (SBI), arguing that the arrested counting agents were under the bankโs operational chain of command, and that the theft occurred under โprivate agency supervisionโ rather than trust oversight.
Backed by CIC rulings, the trust has consistently argued that because it is an independent body neither owned nor financed by the government, it is not a โpublic authorityโ under the RTI Act. By maintaining this legal ringfence, they have successfully prevented citizens and journalists from filing RTI queries to inspect the templeโs daily internal balance sheets, ledger entries and procurement contracts.
On the other hand, legal experts have argued that when a public-facing religious institution operates under a private trust structure, outside the usual framework of statutory oversight, it must remain open to scrutiny through credible audit mechanisms. Because faith may be โprivateโ, but funds collected in its name come from the public.
Indian courts have in the past stepped in when public temple donations were mismanaged by autonomous or hereditary trustees:
โข In the Chidambaram Nataraja temple case (2014), the hereditary trustees (Podu Dikshitars) of the famous Nataraja temple in Tamil Nadu claimed absolute autonomous management. The Supreme Court ruled that while the state cannot permanently take over a temple, it does have the right to step in, audit accounts and criminally prosecute trustees if there is proof of systemic financial embezzlement or mismanagement of public offerings.
About the Author
