Accusing the state of acting in “tearing hurry,” the top court questioned the legality of the ordinance and suggested a committee headed by a retired judge to oversee temple affairs.
BY PC Bureau
New Delhi, August 4 – The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government’s urgency in promulgating the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, which seeks to take over the management of the iconic Bankey Bihari Temple in Vrindavan, Mathura.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi expressed concern over the “tearing hurry” shown by the State and the “clandestine manner” in which it had secured a prior Supreme Court judgment — dated May 15 — allowing the use of temple funds for the construction of a corridor around the temple.
Court Proposes Recall of May 15 Judgment
The bench orally proposed recalling the directions issued in the May 15 ruling, which permitted the State to utilize temple funds for the development project. The justices also floated the idea of constituting a committee headed by a retired High Court judge to oversee the temple’s administration while the Allahabad High Court decides on the constitutionality of the Ordinance.
Justice Kant made it clear that rituals at the temple would continue to be conducted by the same family that has traditionally overseen them. The Collector and other district officials, along with representatives from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), could also be part of this interim committee to ensure holistic development of the temple and surrounding area.
READ: End of an Era: Shibu Soren, Jharkhand’s Architect and Tribal Icon Dies
The matter was adjourned until tomorrow, with the court asking Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj to obtain instructions from the government regarding the proposals made by the bench.
Opposition to Ordinance and Use of Funds Without Hearing Affected Parties
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the temple’s former hereditary managers (the Goswamis), strongly opposed the Ordinance. He argued that the new law ejects the traditional custodians and transfers temple management to a government-controlled trust.
Banke Bihari Temple : Supreme Court Questions UP Govt’s Hurry In Ordinance; Proposes To Recall Judgment Allowing State Use Of Temple Funds |@DebbyJain #SupremeCourt #UttarPradesh #BankeBihariTemple https://t.co/LItjl2k1De
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 4, 2025
Divan also criticized the May 15 Supreme Court ruling, which allowed the use of temple funds for the corridor project. He alleged that the ruling was secured “behind the back” of the temple’s existing managers, who were not parties to the case nor given an opportunity to be heard. That matter, he pointed out, originated from a private civil dispute between two sects — and had nothing to do with the broader issue of temple development or fund usage.
He urged the bench to issue a status quo order, stressing the urgency of the matter.
“This tradition has been going on for hundreds of years. Suddenly the State passes an Ordinance. Ordinances are emergency measures,” Divan argued.
Court Pulls Up the State for Bypassing Due Process
Justice Surya Kant grilled the State on why it failed to issue a public notice before seeking judicial directions on a matter with far-reaching consequences.
“The matter before this Court did not pertain to the Bankey Bihari Temple. A public notice could have been issued… Someone had to be heard on behalf of the temple. This is not a case of no man’s land,” the judge remarked.
READ: SC Frowns at Rahul Gandhi’s Remarks on Chinese Incursion
Justice Kant was particularly critical of the State’s “clandestine” application that led to the May 15 order, questioning the lack of transparency and failure to hear affected parties.
“We don’t expect this from the State. It should have informed the stakeholders—in all fairness.”
He also questioned why the government didn’t follow established legal routes to acquire land and execute development work:
“If the State wanted to carry out development, what prevented it from doing so legally—by acquiring land and compensating owners?”
The judge cited the example of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, where authorities acquired land lawfully for development around the shrine, and questioned why a similar model wasn’t adopted in Vrindavan.
Details of the Controversial Ordinance
The Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, seeks to transfer the administration of the temple to a newly created statutory trust named the Shri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas.
Key provisions of the Ordinance include:
- The trust will comprise 11 trustees, of which a maximum of 7 can be ex-officio members.
- All members—governmental or otherwise—must be followers of Sanatan Dharma.
- The trust will manage both temple rituals and devotee facilities.
- Traditional custodians—the Goswami families—will no longer control the temple’s administration.
A Question of Judicial and Religious Balance
This development brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between state intervention and religious autonomy. Critics argue that the Ordinance, framed and passed without adequate consultation, amounts to state overreach into religious affairs. Supporters within the government, however, insist that the new trust will modernize facilities, regulate donations, and ensure better crowd management—especially given the large number of pilgrims visiting the temple each year.
The case also touches upon broader constitutional themes: the use of Ordinance powers, the use of temple funds for infrastructure projects, and the role of courts in adjudicating disputes involving religious institutions.
Background and Way Forward
On July 28, during the hearing of one of the connected petitions, the Supreme Court had asked the temple’s current management to submit data on how many temples across India have been taken over through legislative actions.
As of now, the Supreme Court appears inclined to let the Allahabad High Court decide the Ordinance’s validity, while an interim committee under judicial supervision oversees temple affairs.
Whether this will satisfy all stakeholders—especially the Goswami families who see this as a violation of centuries-old custodianship—is unclear. But the Court’s sharp criticism of the State’s methods has reignited a debate over executive overreach, the sanctity of temple traditions, and the limits of state control over religious institutions.
