The Supreme Court raised questions over the Uttar Pradesh Government's haste in promulgating the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, aiming to take over the temple's management. The Court disapproved of the State's "clandestine" move to obtain permission for using temple funds through its May 15 judgment and expressed concern over the procedural fairness. The Court orally proposed recalling the earlier order and suggested forming a committee headed by a retired High Court judge to oversee temple affairs until the High Court decides the Ordinance's validity. It emphasized that the continuation of temple rituals by the existing family should remain undisturbed.
The case concerns a longstanding internal dispute among sewayats (servitors) of the revered Bankey Bihari Temple in Vrindavan. Historically managed by the descendants and followers of Swami Haridas Ji, the temple comprises about 360 sewayats. The controversy intensified after the Uttar Pradesh Government proposed a corridor development project and the Allahabad High Court in November 2023 permitted the project but restricted the use of temple funds. In May 2025, the Supreme Court permitted the State to utilize temple funds for land acquisition, sparking concerns from the temple's former management.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the former temple management, argued that the Ordinance effectively ousted the Goswamis and handed control to a government-controlled trust. He criticized the May 15 order allowing the use of temple funds, claiming it was obtained behind the back of the legitimate management in a case between private sects. Divan called for a status quo order and questioned the urgency of the State's actions, stating that Ordinances are meant for emergencies, not long-standing religious practices.
Justice Surya Kant questioned the legitimacy of the May 15 judgment, especially since affected parties were not heard. He pointedly asked how such an order could stand when the temple's recognized stakeholders were excluded from the process. The Court further observed, "The matter before this Court did not pertain to Banke Bihari temple. A public notice could have been issued. Someone had to be heard on behalf of the temple. If a civil judge was monitoring, notice could have been issued through the court."
Justice Kant expressed disapproval of the manner in which the State intervened, "The State came in a clandestine manner and did not allow the concerned parties to be heard. This is not expected. What was the tearing hurry for the Ordinance? "
He drew a comparison with the development around the Golden Temple, suggesting the State should have followed due process including land acquisition and public notice.
The Supreme Court orally proposed forming a committee, including a retired High Court judge and relevant local authorities like the Collector and ASI, to temporarily manage the temple affairs. The bench emphasized that the rituals must continue as they were and that the High Court would ultimately decide on the validity of the Ordinance. The matter was adjourned to allow the Additional Solicitor General time to obtain instructions from the State government. All cases relating to the Bankey Bihari Temple were consolidated for hearing before a single bench by the Chief Justice's order.
Picture Source :
