Supreme Court stays UP's Bankey Bihari temple ordinance, forms panel led by ex-HC judge
A two-judge bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, declined to directly rule on the Ordinance but stayed its provisions that allow the state to form a trust to manage the temple. The court said affected parties should approach the high court instead.
To ensure smooth temple operations, the Supreme Court set up a 12-member committee headed by retired Allahabad High Court judge Justice Ashok Kumar. This panel will oversee the daily functioning of the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Vrindavan, Mathura. The committee will handle essential services like clean drinking water, washrooms, seating, crowd management, and special facilities for the elderly, women, children, and disabled visitors. It will also plan the temple's overall development and may negotiate land purchases for expansion. If needed, the state government must legally acquire the required land.
The order came after Devendra Nath Goswami challenged the Ordinance, including a provision allowing the UP government to use temple funds to buy land for a corridor project. The court's decision ensures the temple's management remains under judicial oversight until the high court decides on the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
How Trump's executive order could reshape college admissions and campus diversity across the US
The Trump administration recently issued an executive order requiring universities to publicly disclose detailed information about the race, test scores, and grade point averages of all applicants. This move intensifies an already heated national debate over college admissions, meritocracy, and campus diversity. According to The New York Times , the new data disclosure rules aim to increase transparency but could also shift admissions practices in ways that affect student diversity across the country's most selective institutions. A century-long debate over admissions For more than a century, colleges have grappled with the question of how to admit students fairly. The controversy touches on fundamental issues such as equal opportunity, racial justice, and the definition of merit. Traditionally, many colleges have used holistic admissions processes that consider applicants' life experiences, including race and socio-economic background, to build diverse and inclusive campuses. However, conservative groups argue that such subjective criteria can lead to unfair advantages for certain groups and discrimination against others, particularly white and Asian students. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Secret Lives of the Romanovs — the Last Rulers of Imperial Russia! Learn More Undo Supreme Court ruling and new federal requirements In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that considering race in admissions decisions was unconstitutional. This ruling forced universities to overhaul their admissions policies to comply with the new legal framework. Building on that decision, the Trump administration's executive order now requires colleges to report applicant data to a federal database called the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Education Secretary Linda McMahon emphasised that this data will help the public see whether colleges admit students based on merit or race, stating, according to The New York Times, it 'will enable the American public to assess whether schools are passing over the most qualified students in favor of others based on their race.' The pressure to prioritise test scores According to The New York Times , experts warn that this focus on quantitative measures like test scores and grade point averages could unintentionally favour wealthier students who often have access to better preparation and resources from an early age. James Murphy, director of postsecondary policy at Education Reform Now, told The New York Times , 'I think the incentives that this creates are a big deal. It is creating pressure on colleges to focus on higher G.P.A.s and higher test scores.' The history and impact of standardised testing The use of standardised test scores in admissions has a complex history. In the early 20th century, colleges prioritised intangible qualities such as character, leadership, and athletic ability. These factors sometimes served as barriers for certain groups, including Jewish students. After World War II, as the United States faced global competition, universities shifted focus towards academic metrics like the SAT. However, this shift has been challenged by civil rights advocates seeking more inclusive admissions policies. Income and racial disparities in test scores Research highlighted by The New York Times shows significant disparities in test scores tied to family income. For example, students from affluent households are seven times more likely to score at least 1300 on the SAT compared to those from low-income families. Among the high school class of 2024, just 1% of Black students and 2% of Hispanic students scored between 1400 and 1600, the highest SAT range. By contrast, 7% of white students and 27% of Asian students reached that score bracket. Admissions beyond test scores Given these disparities, very few elite colleges admit students solely based on test scores today. They also consider legacy status, special talents, and economic adversity to create a more balanced student body. Boston University professor Anthony Abraham Jack told The New York Times that the new order could push admissions towards a 'quota system for wealthy and white students.' He cautioned, 'If your class is too brown, too poor, then somehow you rigged the system.' Jack stressed the importance of context in evaluating applicants, telling The New York Times , 'If you have a student who gets a 5 in A.P. calculus, that doesn't give you a relative understanding of how good they are. What if they're the only young woman in the entire state to get a 5 in A.P. calc? That tells you how amazing that person is.' What this means for students As the admissions landscape shifts, students and families may find it harder or easier to understand what it takes to gain entry into selective colleges. The Trump administration's push for more standardised, data-driven admissions decisions may narrow the path for many, especially students from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds. The debate continues as universities strive to balance fairness, diversity, and academic excellence in an evolving legal and political environment. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Important cases listed in Supreme Court on Monday
Agency: Important cases listed in the Supreme Court on Monday, Aug 11: * SC to hear a plea regarding recall of verdict ordering liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel. *SC to hear plea relating to ex-minister V Senthil Balaji in cash-for-jobs scam cases. * SC to hear plea to examine challenge to the validity of extrajudicial divorce like 'Talaq-e-Hasan' among Muslims. * SC to hear plea by former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel in a criminal case. * SC to hear pleas by politicians Pappu Yadav and Derek O Brien challenging SIR in Bihar. *SC to hear plea by activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi L-G VK Saxena in 2000. view comments First Published: August 11, 2025, 08:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Activists, civil society groups oppose ex-IPS officer heading police watchdog in Haryana, cite SC ruling
The appointment of a former IPS officer as the chairperson of the Haryana Police Complaints Authority drew criticism from several activists and civil society groups, who hailed a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that led to the creation of such bodies across the country as the guiding principle for such appointments. Citing the apex court's ruling in Prakash Singh vs Union of India case, the activists insisted that 'the Authority may be headed by a retired judge of a high court or the Supreme Court'. Haryana government officials, on the other hand, rejected their criticism, stating that states and Union Territories framed their own laws and rules for establishing such authorities. According to the Haryana Police Act, 2007, there is no restriction on appointing an IPS officer to head the Authority, they claimed. The Act empowers the Police Complaints Authority to inquire into allegations of serious misconduct against police personnel, either suo motu or based on complaints received from victims, their representatives or the National or State Human Rights Commission, according to officials. On Friday, the Haryana government appointed former IPS officer RC Mishra as Chairperson of the Authority and former IAS officer Lalit Siwach as a member, drawing sharp criticism from civil society groups arguing that the Authority, tasked with hearing complaints against police officers, must be led by someone from judicial background. Seeking Governor Ashim Kumar Ghosh's intervention, Punjab and Haryana High Court lawyer Hemant Kumar submitted a representation on Sunday, demanding the appointment of a retired high court or a Supreme Court judge as the chairman in line with the top court's 2006 directive. In his letter, Kumar also highlighted the Punjab and Haryana High Court's quashing of the appointment of former IAS officer Pradeep Mehra as the chairperson of the Chandigarh Police Complaints Authority on similar grounds in 2015. Opposing Mishra's appointment, another high court lawyer, HC Arora, who had challenged Mehra's appointment, said, 'Only a retired judge has to be appointed in accordance with the 2006 SC judgment in Prakash Singh versus Union of India case in letter and spirit.' Rohtak-based RTI activist Subhash also objected to Mishra's appointment. 'In 2021, the Haryana government appointed a former IAS officer to head the Authority; but this time, the government moved one step ahead and appointed an IPS officer contrary to the spirit of the 2006 SC ruling.' However, a senior officer of the Haryana government, who is associated with the affairs of the State Police Complaints Authority, defended the appointment. 'Certainly, the 2006 Supreme Court order had mentioned that 'the Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of a high court or the Supreme Court,' but later, the states introduced their legislation. Likewise, the Haryana Police Act, 2007, doesn't bar the appointment of an IPS officer,' the officer said. The official appointment order issued by the office of Haryana Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sumita Misra reads: 'In pursuance of provisions contained in… Haryana Police Act, 2007 (25 of 2008), amended from time to time, read with Rule-3 of Haryana Police (Appointment of Chairperson and Members of Complaint Authorities) Rules, 2018 issued vide notification dated 07.12.2018, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to appoint the Chairperson and Members of the State Police Complaint Authority…' The tenure of the Authority, as per the order, will be three years. When HC quashed ex-IAS officer Mehra's appointment In Prakash Singh versus Union of India judgment, the apex court had in September 2006 held: 'There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level Authority may be headed by a retired District Judge, while the State level Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court.' Based on this judgment, Arora had challenged the appointment of Mehra as the chairperson of Chandigarh Police Complaint Authority, leading to the quashing of his appointment in August 2015. The Chandigarh administration had then stated in the high court that the 'directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh & Ors. versus Union of India and Ors. (supra) are not mandatory and are only directory in nature'. The UT Administration had also stated that 'before appointing Shri Pradip Mehra, IAS (Retd.) as Chairman of the Authority, a retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and a retired Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court were approached, but they did not consent to the proposed assignment'. The high court, however, termed the Chandigarh Administration's response 'a very queer and unacceptable stand'. The HC had also insisted: '…it needs to be emphasised that argument advanced on behalf of the respondents (UT Administration) that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. (supra), are not mandatory, is patently fallacious, meritless and misconceived and, therefore, cannot be countenanced. The term 'May' used in paragraph 32(6) of the judgment cannot be read to mean that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are advisory or directory. The word 'may' has to be read as 'shall' and the directions have to be taken as mandatory.' The HC had stated: 'In paragraph (31) of the judgment, it has been clearly stated that the directions are issued to 'the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations'. Even otherwise, tenor of the judgment leaves nothing to guess as regards the mandatory nature of the directions.' 'It may be apposite to state here that the Authority is not expected to work as a post office meant to receive the complaints from the public and transmit the same to the officer heading the police force,' the high court had commented, quashing Mehra's appointment. Sukhbir Siwach's extensive and in-depth coverage of farmer agitation against three farm laws during 2020-21 drew widespread attention. ... Read More
