Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the State of Uttar Pradesh how it could intervene in a private dispute related to the Shri Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan and "hijack" the litigation between private persons.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma orally remarked that if States start entering into the private disputes of the parties, the litigation would be "hijacked" and it would lead to the breakdown of rule of law.

The Court was hearing a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking to recall the Supreme Court's May 15 judgment which allowed Uttar Pradesh Government to utilise the temple funds for temple corridor redevelopment project. The judgment was passed in a civil appeal between private parties, in which the State intervened. Later, a temple devotee named Devendra Nath Goswami filed the present MA, seeking a recall of the judgment, contending that he was not heard.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the applicant, said: "This writ petition is that the funds with the temple, 300 crores in an MA filed in the Giriraj matter, without making us a party handed over to the State. Setting aside the order of the high court, which said that the 300 crores shall not be given..."

On this, Justice Nagarathna enquired: "Were you a party before this Court?" Sibal answered that he wasn't a party.

She then asked: "This amount belongs to whom?"

Sibal said that the amount is the offering given to the temple by the devotees. He said: "These are charawas given by the public to the temple and the State is taking..how can the temple file an application? It has to be run through somebody so the sevak has filed the application. What has happened is, just the simple question of law, how can you by an order in another petition direct that the private temple's earnings of Rs. 300 crores should be handed over to the State without making anybody a party."

He explained that the Supreme Court allowed an M.A. to be filed in another petition by the State, which pertained to the development of the corridor. He submitted that the State cannot take away the funds.

The Allahabad High Court in November 2023 gave a nod to the development of the Corridor, a plan proposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government. The Court however, restrained the UP Government from using Rs.262. 50 Crores from the bank account of the Deity for the construction of the corridor. However, recently on May 15, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order and permitted the Uttar Pradesh Government to use funds for acquiring 5 acres of land around the temple for corridor development, on the condition that the acquired land shall be registered in the name of the deity.

Justice Sharma questioned whether, through this writ petition, the petitioner is trying to review the decision of this Court. When Sibal answered that he is only asking for a 'modification' of the judgment to make him a party, Justice Sharma said: "You cannot be permitted to review a judgment..even the modification of the judgment amounts to reviewing it."

Justice Nagarathna then asked the State of Uttar Pradesh's counsel if it was a party in the proceedings before the High Court. When answered that the State was not infact a party before the High Court, she remarked: "In what capacity did the State enter into the dispute? If States start entering into private disputes between parties, it will be a breakdown of rule of law! You cannot hijack the litigation. We are not coming in the way of State doing any kind of development, but in a private litigation between two parties, the State filing an impleading application and hijacking it is not permissible."

The Counsel submitted that an enactment has been implemented in this regard, which says that the entire property and funds of the temple could vest in the trust and not with the Government. He said: "Kindly consider, entire money which we are taking about would vest not with the Government but in the trust by virtue of the enactment. That Act says the State Government also has no right to touch the money."

However, Justice Nagarathna continued to question how the State could implead itself as a party in the private dispute. "Our only concern is, in a private litigation between two parties, the State filing an impleading application...We are not on the motive part, the State can still do it without being a party of the litigation. What is stopping you from improvement?Whether you should have been impleaded, you are not there in the High Court. "

Sibal continued to submit that despite the enactment, if any, the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be allowed to take away the private funds. This was countered by the State's counsel stating that the State of Uttar Pradesh has no say after the enactment. On the contrary, Sibal's client is a part of the Trust Board. He said: "This enactment will dilute this direction complete and in entirety. It's an ordinance...This Trust is for the administration of the Banke Bihari Temple. Ordinance to provide better management of the Shri Banke Bihari Temple (Vrindavan), Mathura. Kindly see the Board of Trustees. Section 5(iii), the Board members shall be a total of 11 persons, which shall include a. three eminent persons including Saints, Gurus, scholars, Mahants...Today, I am debarred from this Act to use the funds."

The other counsels appearing for the petitioner alongside Sibal remarked that the enactment is an "indirect encroachment" on the temple.

However, at this juncture, the Court came to know that the enactment is merely an ordinance right now and has not been implemented because the State Assembly is not in session. Justice Nagarathna said: "Had you not filed an impleadment application, this direction would not have been issued."

Justice Sharma suggested that the petitioner should file a review. On this, Sibal vehemently opposed and said: "Why should I? I must be impleaded first...You cannot pass an order giving my private property without hearing us. I am sorry, you cannot take away the property of the private temple like that...You have done it."

The Court ordered: "Learned senior counsel appearing for the learned State submitted that the subsequent developments pursuant to the judgment of this Court which is in the form of an ordinance issued by the State Government by notification dated 26.5.2025 shall be placed on record along with the affidavit of the Principal Secretary of the concerned department. List on 29 July."

However, the Court did not issue notice in this matter.

Case Details: ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS|Diary No. 28487-2025