The Supreme Court, while hearing a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, directed the management committee of the Bankey Bihari Temple to compile and present information on the number of temple administrations across India taken over by the State through legislative measures.
The dispute traces back to internal differences among hereditary sewayats managing the Bankey Bihari Temple in Vrindavan, which has traditionally operated as a privately administered religious institution. In 2023, the Allahabad High Court allowed the State to proceed with a corridor development project but barred it from utilizing temple funds. Later, in May 2025, the Supreme Court allowed acquisition of 5 acres of land using temple funds, provided the land is registered in the deity’s name. This order is now under challenge.
Earlier, the Amicus Curiae had submitted before the High Court that the State lacked competence to issue the Ordinance, asserting that it attempts to gain control over a private religious institution through indirect means.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed this direction during the hearing of a petition filed by the temple’s management committee. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, informed the Bench that a connected matter involving the Bankey Bihari Temple is scheduled before another bench the following day. Taking note of the overlap, the Court opined that appropriate directions would be required from Chief Justice B.R. Gavai for consolidation of both matters before a single bench.
The Ordinance under challenge vests the administration of the historic Vrindavan temple in a statutory trust named Shri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas. The structure provides for a governing body comprising eleven trustees, out of which up to seven may be ex-officio members. Importantly, the Ordinance stipulates that all trustees, whether governmental or otherwise, must adhere to Sanatan Dharma.
At the outset, Justice Kant posed a preliminary query as to why the petitioners had not approached the Allahabad High Court. In response, Sibal outlined the long-standing nature of the dispute, arguing that the State’s intervention amounted to taking over a private temple’s administration. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court, in a previous judgment, had permitted the State to utilize approximately ₹300 crores from temple funds for a redevelopment project.
During the hearing, reference was made to a pending application by devotee Devendra Nath Goswami, seeking recall of the Supreme Court's May 15, 2025 order, which had allowed the State to use temple funds for the acquisition of 5 acres of land for corridor development. The recall plea argues that the judgment was delivered without granting the temple management an opportunity to be heard.
Justice Kant, while engaging in a broader discussion, questioned, “How many temples across India have been taken over by the government using legislation?” Observing that disputes of a similar nature often arise, he commented on the historical nature of the litigation concerning the temple and the large number of pilgrims visiting the site. When informed that an Administrator is already in place, the bench termed it an “ad-hoc arrangement” and reiterated the need for data on all temple takeovers, starting with Tamil Nadu.
Sibal, however, clarified that unlike many prior cases concerning public temples, the Bankey Bihari Temple is a privately-managed shrine. As the Bench adjourned the matter for further hearing in a few days, Sibal expressed his intent to move a mentioning before the CJI for clubbing of related matters.
The petitioners, including the temple’s 350-member management committee and sewayat Rajat Goswami, have alleged that the 2025 Ordinance is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14, 25, 26, 213, and 300A of the Constitution. They argue that the Ordinance is premature and designed to override the ongoing Public Interest Litigation before the Allahabad High Court regarding temple administration. It was also highlighted that the State had not challenged a 2023 decision of the High Court that had restrained it from utilizing ₹262.5 crores from the deity’s funds for the corridor.
The petition further alleges that the Government, rather than filing a Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s 2023 ruling, chose instead to intervene in a separate civil dispute concerning the Giriraj Seva Samiti’s internal elections.
Picture Source :
