
Banke Bihari temple case: SC questions UP Govt's ‘tearing hurry' over Ordinance, suggests interim committee
In November 2023, the Allahabad High Court allowed the state to develop a corridor around the holy shrine to enhance facilities for pilgrims, but restrained it from using money from the bank account of the deity for this.
On May 15, 2025, in the course of hearing a matter related to the administration and safety of temples in the Braj region, the SC allowed an interlocutory application filed by the state. The top court also allowed the state government to use the temple funds for buying 5 acres of land around it for the corridor project, but directed that the land proposed to be purchased for this 'shall be in the name of the deity/ (temple) trust.'
On May 26, the state brought out the Uttar Pradesh Sri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas Ordinance, 2025, setting up a trust for managing the affairs of the shrine.
While presiding over a two-judge bench Monday, Justice Surya Kant asked Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, who appeared for the state, 'What was the tearing hurry for the Ordinance?'.
While hearing pleas challenging the May 15 order and the Ordinance, the bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, wondered how that order could have come on an interlocutory application when those managing it currently were not party to the hearing. 'How do you justify the Court's direction when they were not a party?' Justice Kant asked.
Nataraj said Banke Bihari was a public temple, and those who had challenged the ordinance and the May 15 order have no locus standi as they are not part of its management. 'These parties are not the management committee. So many people claim, but no recognised management committee is there. These are all unauthorised people,' said ASG Nataraj.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, countered and said, 'There is a management.'
The court pointed out that the matter which led to the May 15 order was not about the Banke Bihari Temple, and 'a public notice could have been issued…'.
'Was there any Court-appointed receiver?. It was not a case of no man's land. Someone had to be heard on behalf of the temple. If the civil judge was monitoring, the civil judge could have been issued notice… Some public notice should have been issued by this Court… that on account of the pending dispute between the warring groups…this is what we are proposing…' said Justice Kant.
'Temple funds will have to be utilised for pilgrims, can't be pocketed by private persons. If the state wanted to carry out any development, what prevented it from doing so as per the law? Whether land is private or not, that issue can be adjudicated by a court. The state is coming in a clandestine manner, not allowing them to be heard. We don't expect this… The state should have informed them, in all fairness,' Justice Kant added.
Pointing out that 'providing basic amenities is the state's responsibility', Justice Kant cited the development of the area around the Golden Temple in Amritsar. 'I have said before also, good initiative taken by the state for the area in and around the Golden Temple…that kind of initiative can be there, instead of using legislative power, etc,' said Justice Kant.
'We propose this. Part of the (May 15) judgment, we will keep in abeyance (and), we will have a former high court judge or a senior retired district judge to be management trustee…' the judge added.
Justice Kant said the court will nominate the judge for the management committee, and that the collector and other developing authorities will be part of it. He added that the family will continue to perform the rituals at the Banke Bihari Temple.
The court also told the petitioners that they should challenge the constitutional validity of the Ordinance before the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Kant said the court will ask the former HC-judge-led committee to see how there can be a better management plan for all temples in the area. 'Religious tourism is nowadays one potential source of revenue… When tourists come, look at hotels, restaurants, tea shops… We should encourage good management. Places like Shirdi, Tirupati, all possible facilities are coming there because there are so many religious tourists,' he pointed out.
The court also added that it can involve the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), too, in the plan for the holistic development of the area.
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
‘Denial discriminatory': HC directs CRPF to promote HIV/AIDS +ve woman staffer
Stating that the denial of promotion to an HIV/AIDS positive woman employee of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was 'discriminatory', the Gujarat High Court has directed the CRPF to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector (Ministerial), while also declaring as 'ultra vires' the provisions of a 2008 Standing Order and the 2011 CRPF Assistant Commandant Recruitment Rules that were cited in denying promotion to the petitioner. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray, in its August 5 order, noted that the denial or discontinuation or unfair treatment in relation to employment is 'clearly prohibited' under the HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Act, 2017. While stating that the Act has been enacted to ensure equal opportunity of employment and with the need to protect and secure the human rights of persons who are HIV/AIDS positive, the court directed the CRPF to grant promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date her juniors were promoted. The court said, 'The petitioner shall be entitled to full benefits including continuity of service to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) from the date the juniors to the petitioners were/was promoted. The petitioner shall also be considered for promotion to the (subsequent) post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) by placing her in the gradation list along with her juniors and a special DPC (Department Promotional Committee) be conducted to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the said post…' Granting time of two months, the court said, 'Upon consideration, if the petitioner is found fit on all other aspects, she shall be given promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) from the date the junior(s) to her have been promoted against the vacancies of the year 2024-25… (The respondent is) required to revise pay and re-fix the pay-scale of the petitioner from the date of her entitlement to promotion on the post of Inspector (Ministerial) and further on the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial) and shall pay the arrears including all consequential benefits to the said posts.' The bench considered the arguments put forth by the petitioner as well as the advocates representing the respondents and stated that the case 'presented a very sorry state of affairs at the ends of the respondent authorities including the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in perpetuating discrimination by not bringing necessary amendments in the Standing Order No.04/2008 and the recruitment/appointment Rules, which prescribe blanket restriction for promotion or appointment to persons who are not kept in medical category Shape I, specifically HIV/AID +ve personnel.' The court order stated that the court has reached 'an irresistible conclusion' that the petitioner has been discriminated in denial of promotion to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) from the date of her entitlement on the premise that she was in Shape III category in the medical report dated April 16, 2015. The petitioner had contended that she was promoted to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) only on August 23, 2019, and therefore also denied the subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant (Ministerial). The court noted that 'no efforts seem to have been made' to bring the Standing Order and the Rules governing the services of CRPF personnel in line with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 so as to remove 'discrimination' against the 'protected persons' within the meaning of the Act. Declaring the 2008 Standing Order as well as the Rule 5 of the Central Reserve Police Force, Assistant Commandant (Ministerial), Group 'A' Post, Recruitment Rules, 2011, as 'ultra vires', the court said that it was 'contrary to the National HIV Counseling and Testing Guidelines, 2024 as also discriminatory and arbitrary, being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.' The court order stated that the clauses are 'required to be suitably amended to remove any kind of discrimination, directly or indirectly, expressly or by effect which denies or withholds any benefit, opportunity or advantage from any person or category of persons being HIV/AIDS +ve person(s)… by bringing suitable amendments as early as possible. For the purpose of medical assessment of HIV/AIDS +ve person.' 'SHAPE-1' signifies that a combatised serving personnel is fully fit for all duties. The acronym SHAPE represents: S (Psychological), H (Hearing), A (Appendages), P (Physical Capacity), and E (Eyesight). A SHAPE-1 rating indicates that all these aspects are assessed as being in good condition. Functional capacity for duties in the CPF under each factor is graded in the scale from 1 to 5, indicating declining functional efficiency and increasing employability limitations.


Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Retd SC judge Oka: Did Justice Murlidhar face consequences for decisions during Delhi riots
Noting that dissent by judges while adhering to Constitutional morality comes at a price, retired Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka on Wednesday publicly asked if Justice (retired) S Muralidhar had to 'face consequences' for his 'bold decisions' during the 2020 Delhi riots. At the same event in the capital, themed on morality in judiciary, retired Delhi HC judge Justice Kailash Gambhir drew a contrast between former CJIs D Y Chandrachud and M N Venkatachaliah. He said that while one 'violated' the Constitutional scheme of separation of powers by inviting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a Ganesh Puja at his residence, the other had refused to meet the then PM, Rajiv Gandhi, when his elevation from the Karnataka HC to SC was underway. Justice Chandrachud had defended himself over the visit last year, saying there was 'absolutely nothing wrong for the simple reason that these are continuing meetings between the judiciary and the executive, even at a social level'. Justice Oka, delivering the keynote address at the event in New Delhi, said: 'Judges are not bound by traditional concepts of morality, they are bound by the oath of the constitution. We talk about dissenting judgements… We talk of Justice HR Khanna… he gave dissenting judgments because he was bound by his oath, not bound by what politicians feel or people in power feel or what the common man feels… One example I can't resist, it pertains to Delhi… a midnight bench was constituted (of Justices S Muralidhar and Anup Bhambhani), some victims of riots were stranded and the bench gave audience at midnight or a little past midnight and not only ensured that they were given safe passage, but also ensured that compliance is reported. We often talk about sacrifices made by the three judges in Kesavananda Bharati, but some day we also have to consider whether the judges who were in the midnight bench during the 2020 Delhi riots) met with consequences of their bold decisions given in the four corners of the Constitution. So when we discuss morality, we have to discuss this also… these judgements were delivered because the judges were not influenced by the opinion of the ruling party.' Justice Muralidhar, who retired in 2023 and is now practising as an advocate, was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab & Haryana High Court in February 2020 after questioning the Delhi Police's conduct in the riots and directing it to register FIRs against those who made hate speeches. Meanwhile, Justice Gambhir noted recent instances of 'judicial impropriety'. He spoke about Justice Yashwant Varma, at whose residence cash was found, and Justice Shekhar Yadav, who had made communal statements in a public address. He said apart from financial corruption, the judiciary has also been under attack owing to judges' 'temptation for post-retirement jobs'.


News18
an hour ago
- News18
Bihar SIR Row: Supreme Court Asks For Election Commission's Response On 'Removal' Of 65 L Voters
The SC instructed the ECI to submit its reply by August 9, specifying the reasons for each deletion, such as death, permanent migration, or duplication The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide a comprehensive response to a petition seeking detailed reasons for the removal of over 65 lakh voters from Bihar's draft electoral rolls. This petition was filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has expressed concerns about the transparency and integrity of the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) process preceding the upcoming assembly elections. A bench headed by Justice Surya Kant instructed the ECI to submit its reply by August 9, specifying the reasons for each deletion, such as death, permanent migration, or duplication. The ECI had previously released a draft roll comprising 7.24 crore voters but excluded more than 65 lakh names, citing various reasons, including 22.34 lakh deletions due to death and 36.28 lakh due to permanent absence or migration. In a prior hearing, the Supreme Court advised the ECI to focus on 'en masse inclusion" rather than 'en masse exclusion", underscoring the significance of every citizen's right to vote. The court's order to disclose detailed, booth-wise information aims to facilitate thorough cross-verification by political parties and the public during the claims and objections period, which lasts until September 1. Opposition parties have raised concerns that the revision process might result in the wrongful disenfranchisement of numerous eligible voters, especially those from marginalised communities. The case is set for further hearing on August 12. view comments First Published: 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.