Kejriwal visits Ram Mandir, alleges 'big people' shielded in ₹200 crore donation scam
Synopsis
Arvind Kejriwal walked into the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya on 26 June and turned a pilgrimage into a political offensive — alleging a ₹200 crore donation embezzlement, calling the FIR a cover-up, and questioning the SIT's legal basis. Sadhus burned his effigy outside. The visit puts the Ram Mandir trust squarely in the crosshairs of opposition scrutiny.
Key Takeaways
Arvind Kejriwal visited the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya on 26 June and alleged that influential people behind a donation embezzlement case were being shielded.
Kejriwal claimed the FIR in the case is 'just for show,' with only eight lower-level employees arrested so far.
Alleged theft includes ₹200 crore in cash, 2 kg of silver , jewellery, diamonds, and sacred items belonging to the temple.
The AAP chief questioned the legal basis of the SIT formed to probe the theft, calling it an 'eyewash' designed to protect powerful figures.
A group of sadhus protested Kejriwal's visit, burning his effigy and raising 'Go Back' slogans over his past remarks about the Ram Temple.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal visited the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya on Friday, 26 June, and alleged that the FIR registered in the temple donation embezzlement case was little more than a formality — and that influential figures behind the alleged theft were being shielded from accountability.
What Kejriwal Said at the Temple
Speaking to reporters after offering prayers at the Ram Mandir, Kejriwal said: 'I have prayed to Lord Ram for happiness and prosperity. I have also prayed that whoever is involved in the scam here should be punished by God. The FIR is just for show. Eight lower-level employees have been arrested, but bigger people are involved and they are being protected.'
He also visited the Hanumangarhi temple during the same visit and recited the Hanuman Chalisa.
The Allegations: Scale of the Alleged Theft
Kejriwal had earlier publicly outlined the scale of the alleged embezzlement, citing media reports. 'These people have stolen Lord Ram's sandals, garlands, lamps, jewellery, diamonds and gems, and even the offerings made to the Lord. Cash amounting to ₹200 crore and around 2 kg of silver have also allegedly been stolen,' he had said.
He added that the alleged theft had 'hurt the sentiments of crores of Hindus' and expressed that he was 'extremely pained' by the reports.
Kejriwal Questions the SIT's Legal Basis
The AAP chief had previously criticised the Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed to probe the alleged theft, calling it an 'eyewash' and questioning its legal standing. 'This SIT has been formed on the basis of which law? The team doesn't have any power to conduct a probe. Therefore, this SIT formation is just an eyewash and a way to deceive people,' he alleged.
He further claimed the SIT was being used to 'protect big names,' noting that a theft of such scale, sustained over a long period, could not have occurred 'without the support of influential people.'
Protests in Ayodhya Against Kejriwal
Kejriwal's visit was not without opposition. A group of sadhus staged protests, raising 'Go Back' slogans and burning his effigy. One protesting sadhu said: 'Kejriwal had earlier stated that instead of constructing the Ram Temple after a 500-year struggle, a hospital, school or other public facility should have been built where people of all communities could come… He also used to say that idols are an illusion and that God resides in the heart. If he truly believes that, then there was no need for him to come here. That is why we burned his effigy.'
What Happens Next
Kejriwal announced he would hold a press conference at 4 pm on the same day to elaborate on his allegations. The case is expected to intensify political scrutiny over the administration and oversight of the Ram Mandir trust, with the AAP signalling it intends to keep the issue in the public domain.
Point of View
However, signals that the visit carries reputational risk: his past remarks on the temple construction remain a live liability. The deeper question is whether the AAP can sustain this as a governance issue rather than let it collapse into a religion-versus-politics frame, where the party has historically been on weaker ground. If the SIT's legal basis is genuinely questionable, that is a substantive point — but it risks being drowned out by the optics of effigy-burning.
NationPress
26 Jun 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Arvind Kejriwal visit the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya?
Kejriwal visited the Ram Mandir on 26 June to offer prayers and to publicly allege that the FIR registered in the temple donation embezzlement case was a cover-up, with influential figures being protected. He announced a follow-up press conference at 4 pm the same day.
What is the Ram Mandir donation embezzlement case?
The case involves allegations that sacred items — including Lord Ram's sandals, jewellery, diamonds, and lamps — along with cash reportedly amounting to ₹200 crore and around 2 kg of silver were stolen from the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. Eight lower-level employees have been arrested so far, according to Kejriwal.
Why did Kejriwal call the SIT an 'eyewash'?
Kejriwal alleged the Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed to probe the theft lacked a legal basis and had no real power to investigate. He claimed the SIT was questioning only lower-level workers while shielding the influential people who, he alleged, enabled the theft over an extended period.
Why did sadhus protest against Kejriwal in Ayodhya?
A group of sadhus burned Kejriwal's effigy and raised 'Go Back' slogans, citing his past remarks suggesting that a hospital or school should have been built at the Ram Mandir site instead of the temple. They also referenced his earlier statements that 'idols are an illusion,' arguing his visit was therefore contradictory.
Who does Kejriwal allege is being protected in the case?
Kejriwal did not name specific individuals but alleged that 'bigger people' beyond the eight arrested lower-level employees were involved and were being shielded. He argued that a theft of such scale and duration could not have occurred without the support of influential figures.
