The Supreme Court on Monday asked why the Uttar Pradesh government was in a “tearing hurry” to announce the Shri Banke Bihar Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, for taking over the management of the temple of Mathura’s Vrindavan.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also expressed opposition to the “clandestine manner” in which the UP government secured permission from the apex court to use the temple funds for a corridor development project through an earlier judgment (from May 15). The administration filed an application in a civil dispute to get its permission, LiveLaw reported.
The top court proposed to recall the directions in the May 15 judgement which allowed the state government to use the temple’s funds.
The Supreme Court also proposed to form a committee headed by a retired high court judge to look after the management of the temple while the Ordinance’s validity is decided by the High Court.
The top court bench adjourned the hearing of petitions till Tuesday, August 5, and said that it will send back the parties to the High Court to challenge the Ordinance. Meanwhile, the temple management will remain under the committee headed by a retired judge, and the temple rituals will continue by the family as usual.
The collector and other parties will also be a part of the committee constituted by the Supreme Court. Further, it proposed that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) can also be associated with the panel.
Appearing for the Banke Bihari Temple’s former management, senior Advocate Shyam Divan, submitted before the top court that the government-brought Ordinance cast out the Goswamis, who used to manage the temple.
Divan also reportedly opposed the May 15 order, which allowed the government to use the temple fund for the corridor development project, saying that the directors were passed “behind the back of the management”, as they were not heard.
Divan questioned the UP government’s need to urgently announce the Ordinance. “I need a status quo today. 100s of years this has been going on…and suddenly the state passes Ordinance…Ordinance is for emergency measures,” he added.
Justice Kant asked additional solicitor general KM Nataraj as to how the May 15 order can be justified when the former management was not a party. “How do you justify the court’s direction? When they were not party?”
ASG Nataraj responded, saying that it was a public temple and the persons who approached the top court are not recognised as part of the management. ]
However, Justice Kant said, “The matter before this Court did not pertain to Banke Bihari temple. A public notice could have been issued…was there any Court-appointed receiver? It was not a case of No Man’s Land. Someone had to be heard on the behalf of the temple. If civil judge was monitoring, civil judge could have been issued notice…Some public notice should have been issued by this Court…that on account of the pending dispute between the warring groups…this is what we are proposing…temple funds will have to be utilised for pilgrims, can’t be pocketed by private persons.”
“If the state wanted to carry out any development, what prevented it from doing as per law? Whether land is private or not, that issue can be adjudicated by a court…state is coming in a clandestine manner, not allowing them to be heard…we don’t expect this…state should have informed them, in all fairness,” Justice Kant added.
The 2025 UP Ordinance was brought in to authorise the temple administration with a statutory trust. According to the ordinance, ‘Shri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas’ will handle the temple’s management and the responsibilities of the facilities for the devotees. As many as 11 members shall be nominated, and a maximum of seven members can be ex officio. As per the Ordinance, all government and non-government members shall be followers of Sanatan Dharma, LiveLaw reported.
