NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government 's move to take over the management of the Shri Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan , stating that key stakeholders had not been heard before the May 15 order allowing the corridor project was passed.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi questioned the state’s decision-making, particularly the urgency with which it enacted the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. “What stopped you from acquiring the entire land and properties from your corpus in public interest? What was the tearing hurry in enacting the ordinance, when the matter was sub-judice? Providing basic amenities and developing the area is the duty of the state. There are numerous instances where the state’s participation has helped in developing the religious places like in Golden Temple in Amritsar,” the bench observed.
The court said it would pass orders on August 5 to put the May 15 direction in abeyance and appoint a retired high court or district judge to oversee daily management of the temple. The proposed committee would also include other stakeholders and focus on managing the temple and surrounding areas.
The bench expressed concern about the state approaching the court without informing key parties. “Less said the better. How do you justify the directions passed by the court? The state in the most unfortunate way came to the court in the most clandestine manner without informing the court receiver or stakeholders... Get the directions behind their back and set aside the order of the high court. This is the least thing we expect from the state,” the bench said.
At present, the court is not examining the constitutionality of the ordinance. That issue will be taken up by the Allahabad High Court. The top court will instead look into interim arrangements for managing the temple and adjacent developments.
“This is the land of Lord Krishna. He was the first mediator known to the world. Let’s find a way out to resolve the dispute pending for years and develop the area in the interest of lakhs of devotees who visit these iconic religious places. Basic amenities need to be created as nowadays religious tourism is one of the biggest sources of revenue,” the bench added.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing the state, said a member of the Goswami community had approached the court but was not supported by others. The bench questioned why all warring factions were not heard and asked whether the court receiver in charge of temple management had been consulted.
The court also questioned the state’s use of temple funds for acquiring five acres of land for a holding area. It asked why public funds were not used instead and again raised concern about the urgency of the ordinance when the matter was already under judicial consideration.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the temple’s managing committee, said the order had been passed without giving them an opportunity to be heard. He said since it was a private temple, notice to them was necessary.
The court responded by stating that the term “private temple” was not applicable in this context, given the scale of public involvement and the number of devotees who visit annually.
The top court asked Nataraj to seek instructions from the state and adjourned the matter to August 5. It clarified that the High Court would examine the legality of the ordinance and that the Supreme Court would adjust its May 15 directions accordingly.
Petitioners, including members of the managing committee, have been asked to submit suggestions on how the temple affairs should be managed during the interim period.
The plea, filed through advocate Tanvi Dubey on behalf of the temple's management committee, challenges the ordinance which hands over control of the temple to a state-administered trust.
On May 15, the Supreme Court had allowed the Uttar Pradesh government’s impleadment application and permitted the development of a temple corridor at Vrindavan, using temple funds. That order may now be placed on hold pending further directions.
(With inputs form agencies)
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi questioned the state’s decision-making, particularly the urgency with which it enacted the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. “What stopped you from acquiring the entire land and properties from your corpus in public interest? What was the tearing hurry in enacting the ordinance, when the matter was sub-judice? Providing basic amenities and developing the area is the duty of the state. There are numerous instances where the state’s participation has helped in developing the religious places like in Golden Temple in Amritsar,” the bench observed.
The court said it would pass orders on August 5 to put the May 15 direction in abeyance and appoint a retired high court or district judge to oversee daily management of the temple. The proposed committee would also include other stakeholders and focus on managing the temple and surrounding areas.
The bench expressed concern about the state approaching the court without informing key parties. “Less said the better. How do you justify the directions passed by the court? The state in the most unfortunate way came to the court in the most clandestine manner without informing the court receiver or stakeholders... Get the directions behind their back and set aside the order of the high court. This is the least thing we expect from the state,” the bench said.
At present, the court is not examining the constitutionality of the ordinance. That issue will be taken up by the Allahabad High Court. The top court will instead look into interim arrangements for managing the temple and adjacent developments.
“This is the land of Lord Krishna. He was the first mediator known to the world. Let’s find a way out to resolve the dispute pending for years and develop the area in the interest of lakhs of devotees who visit these iconic religious places. Basic amenities need to be created as nowadays religious tourism is one of the biggest sources of revenue,” the bench added.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing the state, said a member of the Goswami community had approached the court but was not supported by others. The bench questioned why all warring factions were not heard and asked whether the court receiver in charge of temple management had been consulted.
The court also questioned the state’s use of temple funds for acquiring five acres of land for a holding area. It asked why public funds were not used instead and again raised concern about the urgency of the ordinance when the matter was already under judicial consideration.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the temple’s managing committee, said the order had been passed without giving them an opportunity to be heard. He said since it was a private temple, notice to them was necessary.
The court responded by stating that the term “private temple” was not applicable in this context, given the scale of public involvement and the number of devotees who visit annually.
The top court asked Nataraj to seek instructions from the state and adjourned the matter to August 5. It clarified that the High Court would examine the legality of the ordinance and that the Supreme Court would adjust its May 15 directions accordingly.
Petitioners, including members of the managing committee, have been asked to submit suggestions on how the temple affairs should be managed during the interim period.
The plea, filed through advocate Tanvi Dubey on behalf of the temple's management committee, challenges the ordinance which hands over control of the temple to a state-administered trust.
On May 15, the Supreme Court had allowed the Uttar Pradesh government’s impleadment application and permitted the development of a temple corridor at Vrindavan, using temple funds. That order may now be placed on hold pending further directions.
(With inputs form agencies)
You may also like
Kupwara cave raid: Chinese arms, IED manual recovered in 3-day joint op; anti-terror operations continue across J&K
Meghan Markle skewered on Sky News after brutal four-word Trump dig
Pamela Anderson finally gives her verdict on Meghan Markle 'copying' her cooking show
UAE: Why Dubai landlords are paying the price for partitioned homes and now turning away bachelors
'Real Test Cricket': Rashid Latif Hails India's Oval Heist As Siraj Seals Historic Six-run Win
