Latest news with #BihariJiTempleTrustOrdinance
Time of India
07-08-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Allahabad HC adjourns hearing in Bankey Bihari temple case till Aug 20
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday adjourned till August 20 the hearing on a writ petition challenging the validity of an ordinance related to the Bankey Bihari temple at Mathura. When the matter was taken up before a two-judge bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Manjiv Shukla, it was informed by Additional Chief Standing Counsel R N Pandey that the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 has been challenged in the Supreme Court and it is pending. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program The petition has been filed by Sri Bankey Bihari Ji and two others. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Kate Middleton's Daring Outfit Took Prince William's Breath Away Crowdy Fan Undo Counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no order of the Supreme Court regarding stay of any proceedings in the matter nor any order to transfer the petitions pending or being filed in other courts, and thus the present writ is maintainable here also. However, the court fixed August 20 as the next date of hearing in the case. Live Events On Wednesday, while hearing a separate plea challenging the validity of the ordinance, a single bench of the court fixed August 26 as the next date of hearing in the case.
News18
07-08-2025
- Politics
- News18
Allahabad HC adjourns hearing in Bankey Bihari temple case till Aug 20
Prayagraj, Aug 7 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court on Thursday adjourned till August 20 the hearing on a writ petition challenging the validity of an ordinance related to the Bankey Bihari temple at Mathura. When the matter was taken up before a two-judge bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Manjiv Shukla, it was informed by Additional Chief Standing Counsel R N Pandey that the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 has been challenged in the Supreme Court and it is pending. The petition has been filed by Sri Bankey Bihari Ji and two others. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no order of the Supreme Court regarding stay of any proceedings in the matter nor any order to transfer the petitions pending or being filed in other courts, and thus the present writ is maintainable here also. However, the court fixed August 20 as the next date of hearing in the case. On Wednesday, while hearing a separate plea challenging the validity of the ordinance, a single bench of the court fixed August 26 as the next date of hearing in the case. PTI COR RAJ KVK KVK KVK view comments First Published: August 07, 2025, 21:45 IST 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.
Scroll.in
04-08-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
SC questions Uttar Pradesh's ‘tearing hurry' in promulgating Banke Bihari temple ordinance
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the 'tearing hurry' with which the Uttar Pradesh government promulgated the 2025 Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, which permitted it to take over the management of the shrine in Mathura district's Vrindavan, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions against the ordinance. It also expressed disapproval of the 'clandestine manner' in which the state government, by filing an application in a civil dispute, secured permission through a May 15 judgement to use temple funds for the development of a corridor. The May 15 verdict permitted the state government to use temple funds to acquire five acres of land to develop a corridor that is estimated to cost Rs 500 crore, India Today reported. However, this was allowed on the condition that the land should be registered in the name of the deity. On Monday, the bench verbally proposed to recall the directions in the May 15 verdict, Live Law reported. It also proposed the formation of a committee headed by a retired judge to oversee the management of the temple while the validity of the ordinance was being decided by the High Court. The bench then adjourned the hearing of the petitions against the ordinance till Tuesday. During the proceedings, advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the former management of the temple, told the court that the ordinance ejected the Goswamis, who were earlier managing the temple, and vested the state government with the management, Live Law reported. He added that the directions in the May 15 judgement were passed 'behind the back of the management' as they were not heard. The verdict came in a case that dealt with a private dispute between two sects, the advocate added. The state government intervened in the private dispute and secured the orders for the utilisation of the temple funds, he added. The lawyer for the former management of the temple urged the court to issue a status quo order and further questioned the need for the state government to urgently promulgate an ordinance. 'Ordinance is for emergency measures,' Live Law quoted Divan as having said. The bench then asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the state government, how the May 15 judgment could be justified when the affected parties were not heard. Kant criticised the manner in which the directions were passed without notice to the affected parties. 'A public notice could have been issued,' Live Law quoted Kant as having said. 'It was not a case of No Man's Land. Someone had to be heard on the behalf of the temple… Temple funds will have to be utilised for pilgrims, can't be pocketed by private persons.' He also added that the state government had filed an application in the dispute in a 'clandestine manner', adding that this was unacceptable. The judge asked why the state government did not acquire the land as per the law after paying compensation. 'What was the tearing hurry for the ordinance?' Live Law quoted Kant as having asked. The case The Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan has historically been managed privately. In 2023, the Allahabad High Court permitted the development of a corridor that was proposed by the Uttar Pradesh government, Live Law reported. However, it restrained the state government from using Rs 262.5 crore from the temple fund for its construction. In March, the High Court appointed advocate Sanjay Goswami as an amicus curiae to assist in resolving management-related issues. Subsequently, the state government promulgated the 2025 Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance. It proposed the creation of a statutory trust with several state government officials as ex-officio trustees. On May 15, the Supreme Court modified the 2023 order issued by the High Court. The bench allowed the state government to use temple funds to acquire five acres of land around the temple for the development of the corridor. The verdict came in a private dispute between two sects
Time of India
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Find out how many temples have governments taken over: SC to petitioner
NEW DELHI: A 'shebait' of the Banke Bihari Ji temple at Vrindavan on Monday told Supreme Court that the Uttar Pradesh govt through an unconstitutional ordinance is attempting to take over a privately managed temple in the guise of a development plan. Appearing for 'shebait' Devendra Nath Goswami, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Amit Anand Tiwari told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that the temple has a corpus of Rs 300 crore and the sole intention of govt is to utilise this money for the Rs 500 crore development plan. While adjourning hearing on the petition, the bench said, "Please find out how many temples pan-India has been taken over by the state govts. Many temples in Tamil Nadu have been taken over by the state govt." Sibal said the temples taken over in Tamil Nadu are public temples, unlike the Banke Bihari Ji temple which has been managed privately by two groups of 'shebaits' as per a Mathura Munsif court's 1939 judicial order. There are no allegations of mismanagement or misappropriation of funds which could have been grounds for takeover, he said. Justice Kant told Sibal, "You go there and find out how it is managed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stylish Dresses in Tegaldlimo — Don't Miss Out! Dresses | Search Ads Learn More Undo Two groups of 'shebaits' have been fighting for control of the temple since 1938 and have filed many suits. They come to court when govt wants to develop the area to provide devotees with amenities and smooth darshan." The petitioner said the state did not have the legislative competence to promulgate the Uttar Pradesh Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, as it seeks to effectuate a forcible state takeover of a private temple. "The temple is admittedly private in character as it is administered by a religious denomination and governed by a judicially sanctioned scheme of management dated June 11, 1939, under which hereditary 'shebait goswamis' alone are vested with the rights and duties of managing the religious and administrative affairs of the deity/temple," he said. "There is no record or finding of mismanagement, fund misuse, or maladministration on the part of the existing 'shebait'-led management. Throughout the years, no allegations of financial irregularity or misgovernance have been levelled," the petitioner said. The impugned ordinance is a "veiled attempt by the state to commercialise and monetise the private temple under the pretext of providing 'world-class amenities' to devotees", he allleged. "The state's approach to the temple is purely utilitarian and economic, treating it as a revenue generating tourist centre rather than as a sacred spiritual institution governed by ancient religious traditions," the petitioner said.
