'Banke Bihari Temple Ordinance For Better Administration': UP After Supreme Court Rap
The Uttar Pradesh government informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that its objective for enacting an ordinance for Banke Bihari Temple trust was aimed at better administration of the religious place at Vrindavan in Mathura.
On August 4, the top court said it would keep in abeyance its May 15 nod to the ambitious scheme to develop the Shri Banke Bihari Temple Corridor at Vrindavan in Mathura for the benefit of devotees as key stakeholders were not heard.
Appearing before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj said the 2025 ordinance had nothing to do with the pending litigation of ownership of the temple administration.
"Let me clarify at the outset that the ordinance has nothing to do with the pending writ petition. There was a PIL filed for better administration of the temple before the high court and directions were passed," Nataraj said.
He said the ordinance was issued for better administration of the temple, which witnesses about two to three lakh devotees every week.
The bench then told Nataraj that his arguments might be good, but could be made when the challenge to the ordinance is relegated to the high court.
Nataraj handed over the proposal of the state government to the bench, which, upon examination, was found to be the same as suggested by the court on August 4.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, urged the bench to be allowed to give a proposal and suggestions on the issue of administration of the temple by August 8.
The petitioners have challenged the validity of Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, for reportedly taking over the management of the ancient temple and the recall of the top court's May 15 order.
On May 15, the top court allowed an impleadment application filed by the state while paving the way for a Uttar Pradesh government scheme to develop the corridor.
It allowed the state's plea to utilise the funds of the Banke Bihari temple only for the purchase of a five-acre land around the temple to create a holding area.
The top court, however, said the land to be acquired for the purposes of development of the temple and the corridor should be in the name of the deity or the trust.
The bench posted the matter for August 8 while allowing the petitioners to give their suggestions on the issue.
On August 4, the bench deprecated the approach of the state government in moving the court in "clandestine manner" and questioned the hurry for enacting an ordinance.
The top court has said that it would appoint an interim committee headed by a retired high court or district judge to manage the affairs of the temple in the interest of lakhs of devotees besides including the main stakeholders in the managing committee.
It asked Nataraj to seek instruction and submit a proposal for administration of the temple and clarified that the court was at present not adjudicating the constitutionality of the ordinance and the high court will look into it.
The plea before the bench, filed through advocate Tanvi Dubey, of the management committee of the Thakur Shree Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Mathura, challenges the ordinance, which vested the control of the shrine's administration with the state.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
41 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Pray to God USTM is demolished: Himanta
The University of Science and Technology Meghalaya (USTM) has been constructed within a reserve forest, Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma claimed, citing a 'committee of the Supreme Court.' He said it was up to Meghalaya government to deal with the issue. 'My prayer to God is that it should be demolished as early as possible. USTM is not an educational institute but one that commercialises education. Since it is not in Assam, I can only pray to God for its demolition,' said Sarma who had earlier held the USTM and its chancellor Mahbabul Haque responsible for the floods in Guwahati. 'Nobody can guarantee it will exist at its present site after two years,' Sarma said provocatively. Experts come together at snake symposium The first ever 'Assam Snake Symposium' held recently in Guwahati turned out to be a treasure trove, where over 80 snake rescuers from across the state, alongside national and international experts, researchers, and policymakers gathered. Attending the event, Assam Forest Minister Chandra Mohan Patowary announced the government's decision to constitute a state-level steering committee on snakebite mitigation. He also proposed establishment of a state-of-the-art serpentarium in Assam to facilitate advanced research on snake venom, addressing the region-specific challenges of envenomation and treatment.
New Indian Express
41 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Allahabad High Court judge barred from hearing criminal cases
NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented order, the Supreme Court has stripped criminal matters off the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge 'till he demits office' after he 'erroneously' upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. Taking stern view on the judge's order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed removal of criminal matters from his roster till his retirement while tasking him to sit with a senior judge in a division bench. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. Calling the order by the high court judge 'worst and most erroneous', the top court said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying that the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for recovery of the balance amount. 'The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court,' the bench said. The top court was hearing a challenge to the high court's order which dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. 'The Chief Justice of the High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge... make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' the top court order read.
Hans India
41 minutes ago
- Hans India
Centre opposes lowering age of consent
New Delhi: The Union government has objected before the Supreme Court to any move to reduce the age of consent under child protection laws from 18 to 16 years, warning that such a change would open the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent. 'Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law,' the Centre, represented Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, clarified in written submissions placed on record. To buttress its argument, the Centre cited a 2007 Ministry of Women and Child Development study which found that 53.22% of children reported facing one or more forms of sexual abuse. It noted that in 50% of these cases, the abusers were persons in positions of trust or authority, including parents, relatives, neighbours, and school staff. 'The report concluded that children are particularly vulnerable when the offender is a known figure, as the abuse is concealed, normalised, or silenced through emotional manipulation or fear,' the Centre explained. The Centre's position is in contrast to that of senior advocate and amicus curiae Indira Jaising, who has argued before the court that consensual sexual activity between adolescents aged 16 to 18 should not be classified as 'abuse' or criminalised under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Jaising urged the court to read a 'close-in-age exception' into the law, which would apply to consensual sexual activity where both individuals are adolescents aged between 16 and 18. She submitted that the term 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act should not include adolescents in this age group engaged in consensual sexual relationships. Such an exception, she argued, would align with the protective intent of POCSO while avoiding its misuse in cases involving non-exploitative adolescent relationships. However, the Centre maintained that defining 'child' as a person below 18 years was a 'deliberate choice, grounded in the recognition that minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful and informed consent in matters involving sexual activity.' 'The decision to criminalise sexual acts with children under 18 years reflects a clear understanding of the vulnerability of minors, the common occurrence of coercion and manipulation in such situations, and the challenges in proving the absence of consent when minors are involved… This legislative position embodies the collective will of Parliament, acting in furtherance of its constitutional duty to protect children,' the Centre submitted. 'The legislative intent is further reinforced by the age threshold adopted in other enactments, including the Indian Majority Act, 1875, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006… The legal position is again affirmed under Section 375 of the IPC and is retained under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, where sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age constitutes rape per se, regardless of her purported willingness,' the Union government submitted. The government said the legislative framework on the age of consent under Indian law was rooted in a clear and unambiguous intent to provide a 'robust, non-negotiable shield' to minors against sexual exploitation.
