Banke Bihari Corridor: Mathura admin draws up rehab scheme
: Amid the Goswamis' vocal opposition to the Banke Bihari Corridor plan, the Mathura district administration has come up with a scheme to rehabilitate the sevayats or servitors (the Goswami community members engaged in prayers and priestly duties) at the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan. The plan envisages accommodating the sevayats at Rukmani Vihar in Vrindavan.
The Uttar Pradesh government's decision to form a trust to manage the Banke Bihari Temple and oversee the construction of the corridor has met with strong opposition from the Goswami community, the hereditary priests who have managed the temple for centuries.
They view this as a government 'takeover' attempt, eroding their traditional authority and control over the temple's affairs.
In the context of Hindu temples, sevayats are individuals or families who are responsible for performing various ritual services and duties related to the deity and the temple. Their position is hereditary.
The Supreme Court has given the go-ahead for the Banke Bihari Corridor, an ambitious plan to ease crowd congestion and enhance the pilgrimage experience around the shrine.
The state government has brought an ordinance to create a Trust to run the temple and oversee work of the proposed corridor.
After the recent visit of Awanish Kumar Awasthi, the special advisor to chief minister, to Vrindavan on June 6, the work for the proposed Banke Bihari Corridor has gathered pace.
The Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority has selected land in Rukmani Vihar and Sunrakh Bangar for a residential scheme to rehabilitate 275 families to be affected by the Banke Bihari corridor, Mathura district magistrate Chandra Prakash Singh said on Wednesday.
'The work for the proposed Banke Bihari Corridor to enhance facilities for lakhs of devotees coming to the Banke Bihari Temple is attaining pace. Physical verification is being conducted for land measuring 5.5 acres required for the proposed corridor. Alongside this, we have drafted schemes to rehabilitate those to be affected by the corridor,' the Mathura DM said.
'The district administration will offer to settle the land owners affected by the corridor at Rukmani Vihar and Sunrakh Bangar in Vrindavan. The land has been selected and flats will be brought up in a residential scheme. The work is to be undertaken by Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority,' Singh said.
'The 275 land owners to be affected by acquisition of land for Banke Behari corridor include 200 shopkeepers. These shop owners will be allocated shops within the Banke Bihari corridor and compensation will be provided on the basis of land and shops being affected. Those affected by the corridor will be provided the option to settle in a common region for which a residential scheme has been worked out,' Chandra Prakash Singh said.
Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority vice chairman Shyam Bahadur Singh said, 'We plan to construct 325 to 350 flats, both 1 BHK and 2 BHK, on four big plots at Rukmani Vihar Residential Scheme. If required, the number of flats will be increased by marking out adjoining land. Further, land measuring 3.5 acres has been selected at Sunrakh Bangar in Vrindavan.'
'Plots measuring 3924.91 square metres, 2844 square metres, 1800 square metres and 1504 square metres have been selected in Rukmani Vihar where 325 to 350 flats are to be developed under Group Housing Scheme having 1 BHK and 2 BHK flats,' he said.
'A design has been planned for flats to be constructed for affected families because of the corridor. Houses in Rukmani Vihar are on top priority,' said Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, secretary of MVDA.
When asked about the proposal, Rajat Goswami, the former vice-president of the erstwhile managing committee at the Banke Bihari Temple (defunct after a court order), stated that the district administration has not communicated any such rehabilitation plan to them and they are not in position to react as of now.
'The district administration is in conversation with us on various aspects, but has not communicated any such plan in writing to us. The stakeholders should be taken into confidence before making such plans public,' Rajat Goswami said.
Earlier, seeking a consensus on the proposed Banke Bihari Corridor project, Awasthi held meetings with local residents, traders and Goswamis (priests) in Vrindavan on June 6.
On May 15, the Supreme Court paved the way for a state government scheme to develop the Banke Bihari Corridor for the benefit of devotees. The apex court also allowed the state government to use temple funds to purchase five-acre land for the corridor.
The state government on May 27 constituted a Trust to manage the Banke Bihari temple and oversee the work of the proposed corridor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: In-house inquiry is not immunity
The discovery of burnt currency at the residence of a sitting judge on the night of March 14 has caused cracks in the faith that the public has in the judiciary, the integrity of institutions and the perception of justice in a democratic society. Certain efforts appear to have been made to heal the injury caused by this incident by initiating an in-house inquiry. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) quite diligently constituted a panel of three senior judges. The committee has given its report to the Chief Justice, who has submitted it to the President of India. It is reported that on the basis of the findings arrived at by the panel of judges, the CJI has recommended the removal of the judge through impeachment. On June 10, an Independent member of the Rajya Sabha and former law minister, Kapil Sibal, claimed that any motion to impeach the judge on the basis of the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry would be unconstitutional. Sibal's view is well-founded. The in-house committee has conducted the procedure to satisfy the need for a regular inquiry under The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Act stipulates the procedure for an investigation by a committee into allegations of misbehaviour by — or incapacity of — a judge. A House or both Houses of Parliament can take up a motion of impeachment only after such an inquiry. The inquiry under the 1968 Act is, however, not relevant for assigning criminal liability if the proven misbehaviour also falls within the definition of a crime. In this case, no FIR has been registered so far. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while addressing the Times Now Summit 2025, stated that without the permission of the Chief Justice of India, in the matter relating to the discovery of burnt currency notes from the residence of the judge, no FIR can be registered — nothing can be seized in the absence of an FIR. In light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991), sitting judges of high courts and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution, including the registration of an FIR, without prior consultation with the CJI. This is necessary to protect the judges from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment. The CJI must assess the veracity of the allegations against a sitting judge, to advise the President on the need for an FIR. The in-house inquiry is essentially meant for this purpose. By no stretch of the imagination can the law laid down in Veeraswami be a tool to protect a judge from criminal liability. Our criminal law is competent enough to take necessary care of every eventuality. The discovery of the burnt money from the house of a sitting judge potentially constitutes several offences under various laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Income Tax Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The offences under all the above enactments are serious and mostly cognisable. With respect to the March 14 incident, according to media reports, the firefighters first informed the police, including the Delhi Police commissioner. The police team reached the spot, and upon arrival, some photographs were taken and a video was recorded. However, the police did not register any case despite being under the obligation to do so under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This could have been done without naming the judge and without including him in the list of the accused. According to Section 173 of the BNSS, the police, on reaching the scene of the crime, should have secured the area to prevent tampering, destruction or contamination of evidence. As per Section 175, the officer conducting the investigation should have recorded observations regarding the physical evidence available and also drawn a site plan or sketch with photographs and videos. Under Section 176 of the BNSS, the police officers should also have collected physical and digital evidence and should have preserved the same for the use of forensic experts. The police had the duty to protect the crime scene and preserve evidence to ensure a fair trial, as and when that takes place. Adherence to this procedure is fundamental to our criminal jurisprudence and to maintaining public confidence in our justice system. In this case, though certain photographs were taken and a video was recorded, no further care appears to have been taken to protect the scene of the crime and the relevant evidence. The burnt currency wasn't seized immediately and debris was reportedly removed by unknown persons. These are serious breaches. The registration of a case was necessary for an effective investigation. The law laid down in Veeraswami and other Supreme Court guidelines do not restrict the police from taking these necessary measures and registering a criminal case. The failure of the police to take all these measures has caused significant damage to the investigation. It is also strange that no criminal case has been registered even after the submission of a report by a panel of judges holding the judge concerned guilty. The writer is former Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: Peer review is the proper channel
Arghya Sengupta begins his book Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary by juxtaposing the views of Jawaharlal Nehru and Justice Y K Sabharwal. Nehru upheld Parliament's supremacy, arguing that the judiciary could advise but not obstruct the legislative will in shaping the nation's future. In contrast, Justice Sabharwal underscored the judiciary's expanding role in securing good governance, highlighting how the Supreme Court has intervened in areas like environmental protection, electoral reform, and constitutional amendments to ensure the rule of law prevails. This tension reflects a fundamental shift. The recent disclosure of cash recovered from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has triggered a flurry of reactions: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns about the absence of punitive outcomes following an internal inquiry and cast doubts on the legal sanctity of in-house procedures. Following intervention from the Rajya Sabha, the SC dropped its inquiry into the alleged hate speech made by Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, citing that the final authority lies with Parliament and the President. These instances beg the question: Who judges the judges? The judiciary forms one of the three pillars of a democracy and derives its authority from the Constitution. The outdated notion of legislative supremacy has now been replaced: The Supreme Court in Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965) and People's Union For Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2005) recognised that the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution provides strong safeguards for judicial independence, including security of tenure, fixed salaries charged to the Consolidated Fund, protection from discussion in legislatures, and immunity under laws like the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Provisions for the removal of high court and SC judges by Parliament on grounds of 'proven misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' under Articles 124 and 217 create an accountability mechanism. Under Article 124(5), Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the procedures to investigate judicial misconduct. Further, on May 7, 1997, the SC's Full Court adopted the 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. It authorises the Chief Justice to constitute an in-house committee to investigate allegations against judges of the higher judiciary. This was recognised in C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995). The VP, in one of his latest speeches, spoke of the need to revisit K Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) in light of the controversy around Justice Varma's case. However, such arguments overlook the constitutional and legal procedures provided for investigating allegations against judges. The Constitution does not permit ad-hoc procedures in matters involving the higher judiciary. Even prior to the Constitution's enactment, the Government of India Act, 1935, provided for a judicial disciplinary committee comprising judges. After Independence, when then-MP Meghnad Saha complained against a judge, Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar refrained from immediate action. He sought the opinion of the CJI before proceeding. While drafting the Judges Inquiry Bill, 1964 under Article 124(5), eminent legal figures like C K Daphtary and G S Pathak emphasised that complaints against judges should originate from MPs, not the executive, and be submitted to the Speaker or Chairman. If accepted, a three-member judicial committee would investigate the charges. Only if the committee finds the judge guilty may Parliament initiate a debate; otherwise, the motion is dropped. This framework was upheld in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1991), wherein the Court highlighted practices from countries like the US, Canada, and Australia, where initial investigations are conducted by a judicial body, with legislative involvement occurring later. In Veeraswami, the Court held that judges can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but only with presidential sanction after consultation with the CJI. This ensures accountability and judicial independence. In Justice Varma's case, any investigation must be initiated through a motion in Parliament, followed by a judicial inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. As the Court held in the Sub-Committee case, such inquiries are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be replaced by political or administrative processes without violating constitutional safeguards. Harry T Edwards, Chief Justice of Appeals for the District of Columbia, noted in a 1989 paper that 'the ideal of judicial independence is not compromised when judges are monitored and are regulated by their own peers'. The Supreme Court in A M Bhattacharjee noted that 'peer review' is in the best interest of judicial independence and in consonance with international practices. The Law Commission of India in its 195th Report recommended the Judicial (Inquiry) Bill 2005, establishing the National Judicial Council, which was to consist of five judges, with the CJI as chairman. The Commission noted that this practice of inquiry finds its roots in various international principles like the Siracusa Principles (1981) and the Latimer guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998). The judiciary, like any other institution, must be held accountable. But that accountability must be enforced within a constitutionally protected framework that ensures independence from political pressures. The rule of law demands not just that justice be done — but that it be done through proper channels, and equally for all. The writer is assistant professor, Jindal Global Law School
News18
an hour ago
- News18
BJP Targets Bengal Govt In Assembly After Maheshtala Temple Clash; 40 Arrested, Gunpowder Seized
Last Updated: In the aftermath, 40 people were arrested in connection with the violence across seven FIRs. The BJP on Wednesday created uproar in the Bengal Assembly after the Speaker rejected its adjournment motion over the recent violence in Maheshtala. The party accused the Mamata Banerjee-led government of failing to maintain law and order and slammed it for alleged appeasement politics following reports of temple vandalism. BJP MLAs staged a protest inside the House, demanding accountability and action. BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari also changed his profile picture on Facebook and X to a Tulsi plant in protest against the incident. The unrest in Maheshtala began Tuesday afternoon when a clash broke out between two groups in the Rabindra Nagar and Nadial police station areas, reportedly over the location of a shop. The confrontation escalated into violence, with brickbatting on police and isolated incidents of vandalism. Police used force to disperse the mob and restore order. In the aftermath, 40 people were arrested in connection with the violence across seven FIRs. 'None of those who have indulged in violence will be spared," officials said. Adding to the tension, police reported the discovery of gunpowder in the Budge Budge area late Tuesday night, leading to the arrest of five more individuals. The material has been seized, and investigations are underway. A clash between two groups occurred yesterday afternoon in Rabindra Nagar PS area and adjacent areas of Nadial PS over the location of a shop, resulting in brickbatting at police and isolated vandalism in the vicinity. Police resorted to necessary use of force and dispersed the…— West Bengal Police (@WBPolice) June 12, 2025 Prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) have been imposed in the Rabindra Nagar area to maintain peace. Authorities have advised political representatives not to visit the locality until the curbs are lifted. Citizens have also been warned against spreading rumours online. 'Those trying to trigger unrest will be sternly dealt with as per law," police added. Adhikari in a post on X said that he has already written to SP of Diamond Harbour Police District and the Director General (DGP) of West Bengal Police over the incident. He wrote: 'I have approached the SP of Diamond Harbour Police District and DGP @WBPolice so that today, I along with one MLA can visit Maheshtala under Rabindranagar Police Station to meet and express solidarity with the victims of the Hindu families and the affected Hindu shopkeepers who came under the attack of the Jihadis yesterday." I have approached the SP of Diamond Harbour Police District and DGP @WBPolice so that today, I along with one MLA can visit Maheshtala under Rabindranagar Police Station to meet and express solidarity with the victims of the Hindu families and the affected Hindu shopkeepers who… — Suvendu Adhikari (@SuvenduWB) June 12, 2025 He added: 'This visit is a step towards understanding their grievances and ensuring their voices are heard. I hope that the administration doesn't obstruct my visit." First Published: June 12, 2025, 13:34 IST
