SC questions UP govt on Bankey Bihari temple ordinance

Hindustan Times

2 hours ago

The Supreme Court on Monday told the Uttar Pradesh government that it acted in a 'clandestine' manner and with 'tearing hurry' in bringing an ordinance to take over Mathura's Bankey Bihari temple. SC questions UP govt on Bankey Bihari ordinance
The court proposed having an interim administrative committee headed by a former high court judge to manage the day-to-day affairs of the temple and propose steps for its holistic development aimed at promoting religious tourism and granted a day's time for the state and the temple management to respond with suggestions.
On May 26, the UP government brought an ordinance titled 'Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025' which allowed administrative takeover of the temple by a state-run trust that was given power to manage even the temple funds. The ordinance came after a May 15 judgment of the top court allowing the UP government to utilise temple funds to acquire 5 acres of land for a corridor development project around the premises.
The ordinance has since been challenged before the Allahabad high court. The top court on Monday heard a petition filed by the Management Committee Of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple challenging the ordinance and the May 15 judgment that was passed without hearing the Shebaits or the Bankey Bihari temple committee.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, 'What was the tearing hurry for bringing the ordinance? If the state wanted to carry out development, what stops you from getting the land as per law.'
The temple committee represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Tanvi Dubey pointed out that Bankey Bihari Mandir is a private temple and is being administered as per a 1939 court decree by the Sewayat Goswami community for over 500 years. Divan said that prior to the ordinance, the temple used to be managed by a committee having four members of the Goswami community and three non-Goswami individuals.
A public interest litigation for better management of the temple is pending before the Allahabad high court since 2022 and despite the temple committee being very much an active stakeholder, there was no public notice by the state about the bringing of an ordinance and no circumstance necessitated its promulgation.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appearing for the state said that the land on which the temple is situated is public land and the law does not recognise any management committee of the temple. By bringing the ordinance, he said the state aimed for the development of the temple and ensuring that funds are utilised for the betterment of pilgrims. He further pointed out that in the past there were incidents of stampede and to ensure there is more space for pilgrims, the state had benefited from the May 15 order to develop the corridor around the temple.
The bench said, 'Whether it is private land or not can be adjudicated by courts. You were required to issue a public notice as you were aware about the pending litigation by warring groups. But we are sorry to say, the state coming to court in a clandestine manner and not giving them an opportunity to be heard, we do not expect this from the state.'
The court said it was inclined to recall the May 15 order and suggest a retired high court judge or even a senior retired district court judge to head the interim management committee for running the day-to-day affairs of the temple. The court proposed that the committee may be allowed to utilise part of the temple funds for this purpose as it said, 'Temple funds should be utilised for the benefit of pilgrims coming to the temple and not to be pocketed by private persons.'
Divan said that the temple committee will not stand in the way of the court's order as what is proposed is an interim arrangement instead of the state trust under the ordinance which completely divests the Goswami community of the temple management and places it in the hands of state officials.
The court told the ASG that even without acquiring the land, the state is bound to provide basic amenities in religious places, pointing to the example put in place at the Golden Temple where the state persuaded people living near the religious place to shift out to ensure planned development of the area around the temple.
'While the ordinance can be tested by the high court, we can ask the interim management committee that we propose to appoint to work on the holistic development of these temples. Today, religious tourism has a lot of potential as it generates employment. We should encourage it,' the bench said. The court pointed out how facilities in other places of pilgrimage such as Shirdi in Maharashtra and Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh have developed due to the influx of religious tourists.
The court was informed that several temples in the area are heritage structures and need to be preserved with utmost care. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for another set of petitioners associated with nearby temples said that the Supreme Court's May 15 judgment needs to be recalled before a solution can be found to the administration of the temples.
The bench said that once the judge-headed committee is in place, the collector can be part of the committee along with associating the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and architects.
The ordinance brought by the state government creates a statutory trust having full authority to manage and administer all affairs of the temple and comprising 18 members, of which 7 are ex-officio government officers. The remaining trustees are appointed at the discretion of the state government with only two representatives of the Sewayat Goswami community to be appointed by the state.