The Supreme Court permitted the Uttar Pradesh Government to use the funds of Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple, Vrindavan, to acquire land to develop a corridor, subject to the condition that the land be registered in the name of the deity. The Court modified the Allahabad High Court’s earlier order restraining such use of temple funds, and emphasised that coordinated development and effective temple management are vital for ensuring the safety and spiritual experience of pilgrims in the Braj region.
Brief Facts:
The matter arose out of a Public Interest Litigation filed before the Allahabad High Court, wherein the court had restrained the Uttar Pradesh Government from utilising funds of the Shri Banke Bihari Temple Trust for the purpose of acquiring land around the temple premises. The State Government had formulated a development plan worth ₹500 crores for the creation of a corridor aimed at addressing crowd management and providing better amenities for pilgrims. Challenging the High Court's restriction, the State approached the Supreme Court for appropriate relief.
Contentions:
The counsel for the State contended that the proposed development plan was comprehensive and intended to prevent tragedies such as the 2022 stampede incident at the temple, which highlighted the urgent need for infrastructural and administrative overhaul. It was submitted that the temple funds, in the form of fixed deposits held in the name of the deity, were to be used only for the specific purpose of acquiring nearby land, and not for general development expenses. The State also referred to the Uttar Pradesh Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015, to substantiate its authority to undertake regional planning in Mathura-Vrindavan.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma took into consideration the State’s assurances and the religious and historical importance of Vrindavan. The Court observed, “The State of Uttar Pradesh has undertaken to incur costs exceeding ₹500 crores for the development of the corridor. However, they propose to utilise the Temple funds exclusively for purchasing the adjoining land, which was prohibited by the High Court. We are of the opinion that the State is permitted to implement the Scheme in its entirety. The Banke Bihari Ji Trust maintains fixed deposits in the name of the Deity. The amount may be used to acquire the land, provided such land is recorded in the name of the Deity or the Trust.”
The Court further acknowledged the gravity of infrastructure inadequacy in the region, stressing the importance of coordinated efforts involving the State, temple trusts, and local communities. It noted, “Mathura and Vrindavan have immense religious significance and are visited by millions of pilgrims annually. Given the increasing footfall, the cities require broader roads, parking facilities, dharamshalas, and essential public amenities. These improvements cannot be realised in isolation and must be the result of collective engagement by stakeholders.”
Highlighting the spiritual and cultural significance of sites such as Yamuna River, Vishram Ghat, Kashi Ghat, and Kusum Sarovar, the Court underscored the urgent need for conservation and beautification efforts. It also criticised the continued appointment of Receivers in temple management, observing that, “The appointment of Receivers has been treated as a long-term measure, contrary to its intended temporary character. Such appointments must consider religious alignment and administrative capability. Particularly in sacred places like Mathura and Vrindavan, preference must be given to persons from the Vaishnav Sampradaya.”
The decision of the Court:
Modifying the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 08.11.2023, the Supreme Court allowed the State to proceed with the acquisition of land using temple funds, directing that such land must be recorded in the name of the Deity or the Temple Trust. Further, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura, was instructed to appoint a Receiver with relevant administrative, religious, and historical experience, preferably from the Vaishnav tradition, in compliance with the previous judicial directions. The appeal was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Ishwar Chanda Sharma vs. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Case No: SLP (C) No. 29702 OF 2024
Coram: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Picture Source :
