“Transparency cannot become a casualty merely because the government chooses to describe a Trust as ‘autonomous’,” Brittas said on Sunday, adding that compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment does not erase the legal character of a government notification.

The letter comes months after the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled on June 6, 2025, that the Trust is not a “public authority” under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, a stand the Commission based substantially on submissions made by the home affairs ministry.

The Trust was constituted through a government-approved scheme framed under the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, following the Supreme Court’s verdict of November 9, 2019, and a subsequent Gazette notification vested all rights, title and interest in the acquired land in the Trust.

Brittas’ intervention comes against the backdrop of weeks of scrutiny of the Trust’s functioning, after allegations surfaced of theft of gold and silver donations at the Ayodhya temple.

The Congress has separately demanded a Supreme Court-monitored probe and the dissolution of the Trust, while the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has called for accountability and reforms without spelling out specifics.

Of the Trust’s 15 members, 12 were nominated directly by the Government of India, while the remaining three were chosen at its first meeting, Brittas pointed out in the letter. “The legal existence of the Trust is inseparably linked with governmental action undertaken under statutory authority,” he said.

Also Read:‘70kg silver, 1,250kg gold’: Mahua Moitra slams Centre over Ram Mandir donation ‘theft’

The Ministry of Home Affairs has maintained that the Trust cannot be treated as having been “established or constituted by notification” under section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act, since the notification was issued only in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions and not independently by the government.

Brittas termed this argument questionable. “The source of the obligation to issue the notification cannot alter the legal character of the notification itself,” he wrote.

Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in DAV College Trust and Management Society vs Director of Public Instructions, 2019, and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd vs State of Kerala, 2013, Brittas argued that the different limbs of section 2(h) operate independently of one another, and that a body need not be government-owned or substantially financed to still qualify as a public authority under clause (d).

He also cited Delhi high court’s judgment of July 1, 2026, holding the National Stock Exchange to be a public authority under the RTI Act, saying it reaffirmed that the law must be read purposively to advance transparency.

Brittas flagged the continuing presence of serving bureaucrats in the Trust’s governing structure. The Centre’s representative is an additional secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, he said, while the Uttar Pradesh government’s nominee is also a serving IAS officer, alongside the district magistrate of Ayodhya. Another ex-officio member, he added, was once the senior-most officer in the Prime Minister’s Office.

“If the Trust is entirely private in character and wholly beyond the sphere of public accountability, why did the government itself consider it necessary to provide for continuing governmental representation in its governing structure?” Brittas asked in the letter.

Drawing a comparison with the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Brittas said the experience of such institutions showed that religious autonomy and administrative accountability were not mutually exclusive. Extending RTI-style transparency to the Ayodhya Trust’s finances and contracts, he said, “will neither dilute its religious autonomy nor impinge upon the freedom of religion.”

“Trusts that enjoy unparalleled public faith must also uphold the highest standards of public transparency and accountability,” Brittas said, requesting the ministry to place its revised position on record before the high court.