SC continues hearing pleas against UP's Banke Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance, suggests interim oversight panel
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard arguments from both sides and suggested the formation of an interim committee headed by a retired High Court judge to oversee the temple's administration until a final decision is rendered.
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, have opposed the Ordinance and also sought an injunction against the alleged diversion of temple funds for the proposed Banke Bihari Corridor Project. Sibal raised concerns over what he called "complete government control" over temple management, as indicated in a chart presented by the state.
'This chart shows complete government control,' Sibal submitted, urging the Court to allow petitioners to file counter-suggestions. Justice Kant assured, 'We'll address that.'
Accepting Sibal's request, the Court adjourned the matter to August 8 and asked both parties to propose names of a retired judge to head the interim oversight panel.
Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj argued that the Ordinance had no connection with earlier writ petitions and was aimed purely at improving temple management in light of increasing footfall and fund mismanagement concerns.
'The state never intended, nor does it intend, to interfere in religious practices. The Ordinance is solely meant to improve administration and facilitate the daily visit of thousands of devotees,' ASG Nataraj submitted.
He clarified that the Ordinance was enacted in compliance with earlier directions from the Allahabad High Court and that temple funds would be used exclusively for the temple's welfare.
Justice Kant, upon reviewing the proposal submitted by the State, observed that it was broadly in line with what the Court had suggested during the earlier hearing on August 4.
The Supreme Court's involvement follows a series of legal and administrative developments regarding the redevelopment of the Shri Banke Bihari Temple precinct. The Uttar Pradesh government has proposed acquiring 5 acres of land surrounding the temple to build a corridor for crowd and public order management.
On August 4, the UP government had informed the Court that temple funds would only be used for temple redevelopment and not for any secular purposes. 'The funds are to be utilised solely for the temple. Nothing else has been done,' ASG Nataraj told the Court, defending the state's ordinance and redevelopment plans.
In a related order, a separate Supreme Court Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma recently permitted the state government to use fixed deposits held in the name of the deity for acquiring the required land. 'We permit the state of Uttar Pradesh to implement the scheme in its entirety... The Banke Bihari Ji Trust has fixed deposits in the name of the deity/temple. The state is permitted to utilise the amount for acquiring the land,' the Court had said.
In 2023, the Allahabad High Court had also approved the Uttar Pradesh government's proposal under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and religious management.
While the High Court backed the redevelopment project, it barred the use of Rs 262.50 crore lying in the deity's account for corridor construction and directed that government funds be used instead for secular infrastructure improvements.
The High Court emphasized that while the state could facilitate better management for devotees, it could not use temple funds for non-religious activities.
The court also directed removal of encroachments, the involvement of technical experts, and issued strict guidelines to ensure that the daily Darshan of devotees remains uninterrupted.
'In our opinion, even in private temples where devotees come in large numbers, human safety must be given utmost importance. The government is bound to ensure necessary arrangements,' the High Court had observed.
Several stakeholders, including local shopkeepers and residents, have also filed intervention applications opposing the corridor's expansion, particularly near the sacred 'Kunj Galis', citing concerns about heritage preservation and displacement.
The ongoing proceedings before the apex court are expected to play a pivotal role in determining the balance between religious freedom, temple autonomy, state regulation, and public interest.
The matter will next be heard on August 8, when the Court will examine the counter-suggestions and possibly finalize the name of a retired High Court judge to lead the interim committee.
UNI SNG AAB
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC orders nationwide clean-up of ₹1.6L-cr regulatory assets
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed electricity regulatory commissions (RCs) across the country to prepare a detailed roadmap for liquidating existing regulatory assets (RAs) within the next three years. The court also instructed the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to ensure strict compliance with this directive by registering a suo motu petition. The court directed that if any new RA is created, it must be liquidated within three years, with the existing regulatory assets cleared within four years starting from April 1, 2024, as per Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules. (HT Archive) The direction came in response to a petition filed by Delhi's three major power distribution companies -- BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd, and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd -- challenging the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC) approach to electricity tariff determination. The companies argued that DERC's tariff policies over the years led to a massive accumulation of regulatory assets, which as of March 31, 2024, stood at ₹27,200.37 crore across the three discoms, including carrying costs. While examining the issue, the bench of justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta widened the scope of the case, noted that the problem of increased RA was not a phenomenon limited to Delhi. For instance, Tamil Nadu reported an estimated RA of ₹89,375 crore as of FY 2021–22, while Rajasthan's cumulative RA had crossed ₹47,000 crore by FY 2024–25. In contrast, the electricity regulatory commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Sikkim, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh stated that they had never created RAs. The Maharashtra commission confirmed it had not created any regulatory assets since March 2020, in compliance with the National Tariff Policy, 2016, and the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024. The court directed that if any new RA is created, it must be liquidated within three years, with the existing regulatory assets cleared within four years starting from April 1, 2024, as per Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules. Rule 23 prescribes that regulatory assets should not exceed 3% of the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR). The bench held that each RC must prepare a trajectory and roadmap for the liquidation of its regulatory assets, including provisions to deal with carrying costs. It further ordered a thorough audit to determine why discoms were allowed to accumulate RAs without recovery for extended periods. To monitor and enforce these measures, APTEL was directed to invoke its powers under Section 121 of the Electricity Act and issue orders, instructions, or directions to ensure that the RCs fulfill their duties regarding regulatory assets. APTEL must also register a suo motu petition and continue monitoring until the liquidation timelines conclude. The judgment underlined that while increasing electricity tariffs is a tool to bridge revenue gaps, it may impose a sudden 'tariff shock' on consumers. To avoid this, commissions may opt to recover part of the gap immediately and create a regulatory asset for the remainder—recoverable in subsequent years. However, this should not become a long-term practice. 'The financial health and commercial viability of distribution companies must be ensured by the regulatory commissions,' the bench said. It emphasized that tariffs must be cost-reflective, and that revenue gaps between approved ARR and projected revenue should only arise in exceptional circumstances. Highlighting the consequences of unchecked RA accumulation, the court said, 'Disproportionate increase and long pending regulatory assets depict a regulatory failure. It has serious consequences on all stakeholders, and the ultimate burden is only on the consumer.' The court found that while RCs are meant to be independent authorities having functional autonomy, their decisions give a clear impression of a lack of ability to take 'firm' decisions. 'Instead of taking strong decisions on the basis of the statutory mandate, we see instances where the Regulatory Commissions manage and manoeuvre to arrive at a tariff by creating regulatory assets over and above all permissible limits. This is where the problem lies,' the court observed. The bench reminded the RCs to call for ARR, ensure that tariffs are determined, and that truing up is conducted in a timely manner, by exercising suo motu powers if necessary. 'Ineffective and inefficient functioning of the Regulatory Commissions, coupled with acting under dictation can lead to regulatory failure. The commissions are accountable for their decisions, and they are subject to judicial review,' the bench said.
United News of India
31 minutes ago
- United News of India
'What is legal and constitutional is moral': Justice Abhay Oka's powerful call for judicial integrity and constitutional morality
New Delhi, Aug 6 (UNI) 'Traditional morality is shaped by popular opinion. But judges are bound only by the Constitution.' In a thought-provoking keynote address that struck at the heart of judicial ethics, Justice Abhay S. Oka, former judge of the Supreme Court of India, delivered a scathing and insightful critique of the misuse of personal moral convictions in legal decision-making. Delivering a lecture on "Morality in Judiciary: A Paradigm or a Paradox", hosted by The Global Jurists, Justice Oka made it emphatically clear that for judges, morality must align solely with constitutional and legal principles. 'My personal view is simple,' he declared. 'Something which is legal and constitutional is moral. Something which is not legal and not constitutional is immoral nothing else matters for a judge.' Justice Oka argued that judges must resist the temptation to allow personal beliefs, societal expectations, or political noise to influence their decisions. 'A judge may follow a religion, hold personal moral values, or believe in a philosophy. But once he assumes office, these views must be locked away in a watertight compartment,' he said. He strongly cautioned that moral convictions have no place in jurisprudence. Referring to cases where individuals spend over a decade in prison without legal evidence, he called such decisions 'moral convictions masquerading as justice.' Justice Oka urged for a shift in how we view the judiciary at the grassroots level. 'It is wrong to call them subordinate or lower courts. They are the main courts of this country because it is here that the common man goes for justice,' he stated. Recalling his time as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, he said his first administrative order was to ensure the term 'subordinate courts' was discarded. 'The real mistake we made in the last 75 years was not focusing enough on the trial and district judiciary.' Justice Oka addressed the rising pressure judges face, particularly in heinous crimes or economic offenses. He cited how public outrage, media coverage, or political statements such as a Chief Minister declaring an accused will be hanged can create an atmosphere of fear for grassroots judges. 'The involvement of large sums of money or the gravity of the allegations may be one factor, but judges must decide bail strictly within the four corners of the law,' he affirmed. He added, 'Judges must be prepared to deliver verdicts that are not popular.' Touching upon exceptions, he noted that in rare cases, judges may invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice. However, even in such circumstances, he reiterated that decisions must stem from constitutional morality, not personal values. He also referenced dissenting judgments such as Justice H.R. Khanna's in the ADM Jabalpur case and the Kesavananda Bharati verdict to highlight the importance of judges staying true to constitutional principles, even at great personal cost. 'Three judges who gave the majority opinion in Kesavananda Bharati were superseded. But they were not swayed by the views of the ruling government.' Justice Oka acknowledged the flaws in the current judicial appointment system, particularly the delay between Collegium recommendations and appointments. He cited the example of Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, who withdrew his consent for judgeship after waiting nearly a year. 'The real challenge for Chief Justices is to convince good lawyers to join the Bench. But delay in appointments dissuades them,' he said, urging immediate government attention to this issue. Justice Oka concluded by recognizing the crisis of credibility in the judiciary and called for a recommitment to constitutional morality. 'Judges must set aside personal notions of morality, faith, religion, or political inclinations. That is the only way to meet the challenges before the judiciary today.' 'The job of a judge is not to preach. The question is not whether an action is good or bad, but whether it is legal or illegal.' He emphasized that criticism of judgments must be legal and balanced, urging the public and professionals to acknowledge both the right and wrong decisions of the courts. Justice Oka's powerful address served as a sobering reminder that justice cannot and must not be shaped by personal or societal moralities. Instead, it must emerge from the spirit and letter of the Constitution. 'The Constitution is our moral compass. That is the only morality a judge must know,' he concluded to resounding applause from a hall filled with eminent judges and legal luminaries. UNI SNG RN
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Israeli military-political command divided over PM Netanyahu's plans to conquer Gaza, warns of heavy casualties
Jerusalem, Aug 6 (UNI) Amidst Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plans to fully occupy Gaza, much friction has emerged between the political and military establishment in the country, with senior military officials warning the premier that a full occupation of the Gaza Strip could result in heavy casualties among Israeli forces and endanger the lives of remaining hostages. The warning comes amid growing concerns over Netanyahu's reported push to seize complete control of the enclave, where the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) already hold over 75% of the territory, reports Times of Israel. According to Israeli broadcaster Kan, defence officials have estimated that such an operation could result in 'dozens' of soldiers being killed and many more wounded. They further cautioned that a sweeping ground campaign could jeopardise the lives of hostages under Hamas custody, particularly in areas the IDF has avoided due to this very fear. The move has created friction even among Netanyahu's supporters within the Israeli military leadership and its political command, with IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir having reportedly advised the adoption of more cautioned and restrained approach. Lt Gen Zamir had proposed the encirclement of Gaza City rather than launch a full-scale military occupation to avoid both losses and structural damage. Netanyahu, however, is said to have rejected this recommendation and ordered plans to move ahead with the full military conquest. The Israeli PM's plans have also drawn criticism from opposition leaders, including from both Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and Opposition leader Yair Lapid, latter of whom terming the Israeli PM's plans 'a very bad idea.' Speaking during a security briefing, Lapid reportedly told Netanyahu that the Israeli public does not support such a move and warned that the cost — both in human lives and economically — would be too high. 'You don't send the State of Israel to war unless the majority of the people are behind you,' Lapid told Netanyahu. 'The price will be too heavy.' He urged the government to consider an alternative solution, suggesting that Arab states could take over the administration of Gaza, allowing Israel to focus on neutralising Hamas operatives, instead of getting entangled in prolonged occupation. Netanyahu, who held a three-hour security discussion with top officials yesterday, is expected to present the plan to the full security cabinet for approval today. Despite the military's warnings and the political command urging for alternatives, the cabinet is reportedly poised to greenlight the move. UNI XC ANV GNK
