Why the Absence of a FIR in the Ram Temple Donation Theft Allegation May Invite Judicial Review of Investigative Obligations

Aam Aadmi Party national convenor Arvind Kejriwal publicly asserted that individuals of considerable prominence, described as ‘big names’, are implicated in the alleged theft of donations intended for the Ram Temple construction, contending that the revelation of their identities could precipitate the collapse of the incumbent government, thereby framing the matter as not merely a criminal incident but a potential political crisis. He further complained that, despite media and public reports indicating that crores of cash and valuable items were stolen in the alleged misappropriation, law‑enforcement agencies, specifically the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate, have not yet filed a formal First Information Report or commenced any investigative procedures, thereby raising questions about the operational responsiveness of statutory investigative bodies. Kejriwal urged the authorities to act swiftly, arguing that the failure to protect public faith in the donation process and to safeguard the financial contributions pledged by devotees could undermine confidence in governmental integrity and the broader secular‑religious framework governing the nation’s monumental projects. His statements implicitly invoke the legal expectation that law‑enforcement agencies must not only register complaints under the applicable criminal procedure framework when cognizable offences are reported, but also that the judiciary may entertain writ petitions compelling the performance of statutory duties where administrative inertia appears to jeopardise the rights of victims and the public interest. The contention that the non‑registration of a First Information Report may amount to a denial of the victims’ right to a fair investigation also raises potential constitutional scrutiny under the guarantee of equality before law and protection against arbitrary state inaction.

One question is whether the statutory duty imposed on police officers by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to record a First Information Report upon receipt of information relating to a cognizable offence, such as alleged theft of large sums of money, can be deemed mandatory and enforceable through judicial intervention. If the investigating officer declines to register an FIR despite credible reports indicating that crores of cash and valuables have been misappropriated, the affected victims may approach the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus compelling compliance with the procedural requirement embedded in criminal law. The legal position may further hinge on whether the failure to file an FIR is characterised as an administrative lapse that infringes the victims’ entitlement to a fair and impartial investigation under the guarantee of equality before law.

A second issue concerns the jurisdictional authority of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate to initiate inquiries in the absence of a registered FIR, and whether a formal request from the state government or a direction from a court is indispensable for their involvement. If the investigative agencies decline to act without an FIR, the aggrieved parties could argue that such refusal contravenes the statutory mandate for these bodies to probe economic offences that threaten public trust and financial integrity. The courts have, in prior jurisprudence, entertained writ applications compelling the Enforcement Directorate to commence proceedings where substantial evidence of money‑laundering exists, thereby suggesting that a parallel judicial avenue may be available in the present context.

A further constitutional question arises as to whether the state's inaction in initiating an investigation infringes the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21, insofar as the alleged misappropriation threatens the economic well‑being of donors and the collective confidence in public institutions. The principle of equality before law, enshrined in Article 14, may also be invoked if the selective neglect of a high‑profile donation case is perceived as preferential treatment that deprives certain citizens of the same protective legal safeguards afforded to others. Should a petition be filed, the judiciary would likely examine whether the denial of an FIR constitutes an arbitrary state action violating the doctrine of proportionality and the procedural due‑process guarantees implicit in the Constitution.

Potential remedies for the aggrieved donors may include filing a writ of mandamus under Article 32 to compel the police to register an FIR, as well as seeking a direction for the CBI or ED to undertake a parallel inquiry, thereby ensuring that investigative powers are exercised in accordance with statutory mandates. Alternatively, a public interest litigation could be entertained by the Supreme Court on the ground that the alleged disappearance of public donations undermines the fiduciary responsibility of the state to protect collective assets, thereby invoking a broader public‑law dimension. The success of such petitions would depend on the court’s assessment of whether the non‑registration of an FIR represents a substantive denial of justice rather than a mere procedural oversight, a distinction that carries significant jurisprudential weight.

In sum, the allegations raised by the political leader regarding the involvement of prominent individuals in the alleged theft of Ram Temple donations, coupled with the reported failure to file a First Information Report and to mobilise investigative agencies, generate multiple layers of legal scrutiny encompassing criminal procedural duties, statutory investigative jurisdiction, and constitutional guarantees of equality, due process, and protection of public funds. Should the courts determine that statutory duties have been neglected, they possess the authority to order compliance, potentially mandating the initiation of an FIR and directing investigative bodies to examine the alleged misappropriation, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and public confidence in the criminal justice system.