Nirmohi Akhara Moves Supreme Court Seeking Reconstitution Of Ram Temple Trust

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the original litigants in the decades-long Ayodhya title dispute, has moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to ensure "due implementation" of the Constitution Bench's judgment of November 9, 2019, alleging that the Centre-constituted Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust has failed to give it the role and representation the verdict envisaged.

The application, filed through advocate Pratibha Jain comes nearly seven years after the five-judge bench decided the Ayodhya title suits and directed the Centre to frame a scheme for a trust to manage the disputed site. While dismissing Nirmohi Akhara's own suit as barred by limitation, the 2019 judgment had nonetheless recognised the Akhara's "historical presence" at the site and directed that "an appropriate role in the management would be assigned to the Nirmohi Akhara," with representation in the trust "in such manner as the Central Government deems fit."

The Akhara's fresh application, filed through its Sarpanch, Mahant Raja Ramchandracharya, contends that this direction has been reduced to a "symbolic solitary seat" rather than genuine representation. It argues that Mahant Dinendra Das, who was named as the Akhara's representative-trustee in the Trust Deed of February 5, 2020, was never selected by the Akhara's Panchayat as required under its own registered rules dated March 19, 1949, and was instead nominated unilaterally by the Central Government.

"The appointment of a single Mahant chosen by the Government does not amount to representation of the Applicant," the application states, adding that under the Ramanandi Panchayati system followed by the Akhara, "no Mahant represents the Akhara unless duly nominated by the Panchayat."

The application also places on record a resolution passed by the Akhara's Panchayat on July 5, 2026, purporting to remove Mahant Dinendra Das from the office of Sarvarkar over allegations that he acted "contrary to the tradition of the Akhara," including by submitting a compromise proposal to a court-appointed mediation panel without consulting the Panchas. Mahant Raja Ramchandracharya has since been recognised by the Panchayat as the Akhara's Sarpanch and Sarvarkar.

Beyond the representation dispute, the application draws the Court's attention to recent turmoil within the Trust itself. It refers to allegations that surfaced around June 2026 of large-scale embezzlement of cash and valuables offered by devotees, prompting the Uttar Pradesh government to constitute a Special Investigation Team. The plea notes that two trustees have resigned and several persons connected with handling the Trust's accounts have been arrested, and that the Trust's General Secretary, Champat Rai, along with trustee Anil Mishra, tendered resignations accepted on July 6, 2026.

"The Trust... has consequently become virtually a private body exercising unfettered and unaccountable authority over what is essentially a public religious endowment held for the Deity," the application states, arguing there was "no option but to approach this Hon'ble Court for appropriate directions."

Among the reliefs sought, the Akhara has asked the Court to direct that the Trust be reconstituted as a public trust with oversight by the seers of the Ramanandi Bairagi Sampradaya, that it be given the right to nominate its trustee through its own Panchayat process, and that rituals at the temple be conducted "strictly according to the Ramanandi Sampradaya."

Significantly, the application also seeks restoration of the original deities of Ram Lalla Virajman, attached in 1950 and 1982 to the sanctum sanctorum, contending that the Trust had no authority in law to consecrate a substitute idol. It further seeks appointment of an independent committee to examine whether the 2019 judgment has been faithfully implemented, and a forensic auditor to scrutinise the Trust's financial and property transactions.

The application clarifies that it does not seek to reopen or re-agitate the findings of the 2019 verdict, but is "confined to seeking appropriate directions... to ensure faithful and effective implementation" of the judgment. The matter is expected to come up before the Supreme Court in the coming weeks.