Latest news with #BankeBihariTempleTrustOrdinance
India Today
7 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
UP okay with ex-judge-led Banke Bihari panel, but says he must be 'Sanatani Hindu'
The Uttar Pradesh government on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it was open to the formation of an interim management committee for the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan, headed by a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court who is a Sanatani Hindu belonging to the Vaishnav sect. In its written submissions, the state said such an appointment would help uphold the religious sentiments of devotees of Shri Banke Bihari ji suggestion prompted a remark from the top court, which said it may be sufficient for the judge to simply belong to the same religion. "See your first point. Belonging to the same religion is enough. In the Kali temple, the civil judge is from the same religion," the court observed. The state clarified that it had no objection to the constitution of an interim committee by the court, provided it is led by a retired High Court judge. The committee would manage the temple's day-to-day affairs and have access to temple funds to initiate work on the proposed corridor project, pending implementation of the state's Banke Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. The government also assured the court that it is committed to financing the project in partnership with the temple administration, citing the example of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General, representing the state, said the government's intention was not to interfere in religious practices, but to ensure proper temple management and prevent misuse of funds. The government also stressed the need for tight law and order controls, pointing out that the temple's limited size and logistical challenges had led to a deadly stampede in 2022 in which several people were injured and some lost their state proposed the inclusion of the civil judge who has been overseeing temple affairs for several years, noting that his experience would support the functioning of the also recommended the involvement of key administrative and planning officials, including the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police, Municipal Commissioner, Vice Chairman of the Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority, the Principal Secretary of the Dharmarth Karya Department, and a representative from the Archaeological Survey of India. The Dharmarth Karya Department has already earmarked Rs 150 crore for the temple's Supreme Court was hearing petitions filed by temple priests challenging the Banke Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, and also seeking modifications to the court's earlier order that allowed the Uttar Pradesh government to utilise temple funds for infrastructure and administrative purposes.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
05-08-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Lord Krishna was first mediator...: Top court raps UP Govt in Banke Bihari Temple case
During the ongoing hearing in the Banke Bihari Temple case on Monday, the Supreme Court remarked that Lord Krishna was also a mediator. The top court's observation came while it was contemplating an interim committee to look after the management of the iconic Shri Banke Bihari temple at Vrindavan, in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh.'When you talk about mediation, he was the first mediator available. So we also try to mediate,' Justice Surya Kant is an area of extraordinary importance. We don't want to exclude anyone,' the bench said, while granting time to counsel for Uttar Pradesh to seek instructions regarding the interim arrangement. The court also called out the Uttar Pradesh government for the manner in which the state secured an order impacting the management of the Banke Bihari temple without the court hearing its current representatives.'We don't expect the state to do this. You went behind their backs without even giving notice,' the court top court was hearing petitions filed by the temple priests challenging the Banke Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, and also seeking modification of the Supreme Court's earlier order permitting the Uttar Pradesh government to utilise funds for the Shri Banke Bihari Temple in is not the first time the government has been questioned by the top court. In May, when this case was heard by a different bench, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned why the state decided to "hijack" a litigation between two private Conduct, Alleges PetitionerSenior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, alleged that the state had 'sneaked in' and obtained a court order — originally related to another temple — without notice to the Banke Bihari temple's existing management. The court, he claimed, had no opportunity to hear the temple management before the May 15 order was passed, which was now being used to justify the the move 'startling,' Divan argued that the Banke Bihari temple is a private temple, and the state had no right to interfere without proper legal Questions State's ApproachThe ASG, representing the UP government, contended that the temple was not private, and those objecting to the ordinance were unauthorised persons. But the Court was not convinced.'Show us where this court ever intended to hear a temple representative? Why was there no public notice? We don't expect the state to move in this manner; the state should have informed,' the bench an example of how initiatives have been taken around the Golden Temple, the court added: 'Such initiatives can be taken at times instead of using legislative or executive power. You think people will say no if you speak to them? Instead, you went behind their backs.'advertisementThe court repeatedly asked the state: 'What stopped you from acquiring the land legally and paying compensation?'The court, however, clarified that the temple funds will have to be utilised for development and can't be pocketed by private persons in the name of a private Committee LikelyIn light of the controversy, the Supreme Court said it is inclined to form an interim management committee headed by a retired High Court judge. The local collector may also be included in the panel would oversee day-to-day temple affairs until the High Court decides on the validity of the ordinance.'Religious tourism is important. Heritage must be maintained. But there must be an ecosystem where pilgrims feel a sense of order, not mismanagement,' the court state has been directed to take instructions and revert. The bench clarified that the ordinance can be challenged under Article 226 before the High Court but stressed that, in the meantime, a balanced interim arrangement may be necessary.- EndsTune InMust Watch
India Today
04-08-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Not a case of no man's land: Court raps UP's 'hurry' in Banke Bihari ordinance
The Supreme Court on Monday blasted Uttar Pradesh over its "tearing hurry" in promulgating the Banke Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance, which effectively hands over the management of the famous shrine in Vrindavan to the government.A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also pulled up the government over the "clandestine manner" in which it secured a nod from the top court on May 15 for the use of temple funds to develop a May, the top court allowed the government to use temple funds to acquire five acres of land to develop a corridor that is estimated to cost Rs 500 crore. However, the top court allowed it on the condition that the land should be registered in the name of the deity. On Monday, the bench proposed withdrawing the May judgment on allowing the usage of temple also proposed forming a panel headed by a retired judge to oversee the day-to-day affairs of the temple until the validity of the ordinance is decided by the Allahabad High court faulted the manner in which the directions in May were passed without giving notice to the affected parties."It was not a case of no man's land. Someone had to be heard on behalf of the temple... Some public notice should have been issued by this court on account of the pending dispute between the warring groups... this is what we are proposing. Temple funds will have to be utilised for pilgrims, can't be pocketed by private persons," Justice Kant petitioners have claimed the temple has always been operated under a private management structure and asserted that the ordinance amounts to government interference in religious affairs.- EndsMust Watch
