The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a contempt petition challenging the increase in darshan timings at the Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple in Vrindavan, holding that the decision taken by a Supreme Court appointed High Powered Temple Management Committee did not violate earlier High Court orders. The ruling clears the way for extended darshan hours aimed at easing pilgrim congestion at one of India’s most crowded temples.
The dispute traces back to a pending public interest litigation seeking a structured management scheme for the Banke Bihari Temple. While a civil court order increasing darshan hours had earlier been stayed by the High Court, the Apex Court later stepped in amid administrative deadlock and factional disputes among temple stakeholders. In August 2025, the apex court constituted a High-Powered Committee, headed by a retired High Court judge, to oversee daily temple functioning.
Acting under this mandate, the Committee resolved in September 2025 to extend darshan timings, prompting a contempt plea alleging that this move indirectly breached the High Court’s 2022 restraint order.
Rejecting the contempt claim, the High Court held that there was no willful disobedience of its earlier order. The Court noted that the earlier stay was linked to an administrative driven civil court order, whereas the present decision flowed directly from the Supreme Court’s directions empowering the Committee to manage day-to-day affairs.
Emphasising the Committee’s remit to address pilgrim hardship and crowd pressure, the Court observed that the panel was acting “to oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning inside and outside the Temple.” Finding no conflict between the Supreme Court’s mandate and its own earlier orders, the Court concluded that “no case for contempt is made out” and dismissed the application.
Case Title: Gaurav Goswami Versus Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.) and 12 others
Case No.: Contempt Application (Civil) No. - 5608 Of 2025
Coram: HON'BLE Justice. ROHIT RANJAN Agarwal
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Rajeev Goswami
Advocate for the Respondent: Non
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
