Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In pleas challenging the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, the Uttar Pradesh government urged before the Supreme Court today that it did not intend to interfere with any religious rights by means of the Ordinance. It further claimed that the Ordinance will soon be placed before the Legislative Assembly for ratification.

"Let me clarify the Ordinance first...it has nothing to do with the earlier writ petition...a PIL was filed before High Court, where certain directions were issued...court asked to come out with better scheme...State never intended nor it intends to interfere with any of the religious rights of any of the parties...it's only with regard to the secular activities, that is, for better administration of temple that Ordinance has been issued and shortly it's going to be ratified in the Assembly...this temple has a history...daily, around 20000-30000 devotees are visiting...on weekend, there are 2-3 lakh visitors...we require better facilities, also we have to prevent mismanagement of funds...these are different considerations that weighed in the mind of the government", submitted Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj (for State of UP).

The submissions came in the backdrop of some critical observations made by the Supreme Court yesterday, when it questioned the UP government's "tearing hurry" in promulgating the Ordinance for taking over management of the Bankey Bihari temple in Vrindavan, Mathura. In the said hearing, the Court expressed disapproval of the "clandestine manner" in which the state government secured permission from it through the May 15 judgment for the use of temple funds, by filing an application in a civil dispute to which the temple management was not party.

Today, after going through a proposal submitted by the state government, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the matter till Friday, to enable the petitioners as well to give their suggestions. It also asked both sides to give their recommendations for the appointment of a former High Court judge as head of a Committee to oversee the temple management as an interim measure.

Insofar as the UP government suggested appointment of a former High Court judge belonging to the Vaishnava sect (of Hindu religion), the bench expressed difficulty in finding such a judge. "Belonging to the same religion is enough", said Justice Bagchi. The judge further gave example of Kali Mata Temple in Kolkata, saying that the district judge there is always one belonging to the religion.

Background

The dispute related to the Banke Bihari Temple traces back to longstanding internal differences between the two sects of sewayats of the revered Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan. With around 360 sewayats, the temple has historically been managed privately by descendants and followers of Swami Haridas Ji.

On May 15, the Supreme Court modified an Allahabad High Court order of 2023 and permitted the UP government to use temple funds for acquiring 5 acres of land around it for Corridor development, on the condition that the acquired land shall be registered in the name of the deity.

Recently, the State promulgated the 2025 Ordinance, which statedly vests the temple administration with a statutory trust. According to it, the management of the temple and the responsibility of facilities for the devotees shall be handled by the 'Shri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas'. While 11 trustees shall be nominated, a maximum of 7 members can be ex-officio.

For more details, click here.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Kapil Sibal and Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate Tanvi Dubey (for petitioners); ASG KM Nataraj and AoR Ruchira Goel (for UP); Sr Advs Navin Pahwa and Vibha Datta Makhija (for respondents)

Case Title:

(1) DEVENDRA NATH GOSWAMI Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 709/2025

(2) MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THAKUR SHREE BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ TEMPLE AND ANR. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 704/2025 (and connected case)

(3) THAKUR SHRI BANKEY BIHARIJI MAHARAJ THROUGH SHEBAIT HIMANSHU GOSWAMI AND ANR. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 734/2025

(4) ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., Diary No. 28487-2025 (and connected case)

(5) ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA Versus DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS., Diary No. 39950-2025

(6) HARIDASI SAMPRADAY THROUGH DAMANDEEP SINGH AND AMAR NATH GAUTAM SHISHYA OF HARIDASI SAMPRADAY AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 707/2025