'UP Govt Committing A Sin; Temple Must Be Left Alone': Allahabad High Court Orally Slams State Over Banke Bihari Temple Ordinance

A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal today made sharp oral remarks questioning the State's attempt to control temple management through statutory mechanisms as it urged the state government to "leave the temple alone".

The Court also orally said that if similar attempts were made in other religions, the consequences would be different. "Kisi aur religion mein (deity) ka paisa le lijiye, hangama ho jaega", it said.

The bench also called out the bureaucratic intentions allegedly underlying the move, it said:

"IAS officers ko paisa khana hai…Aapke yahan ek retired bureaucrat hai jo peeche pada hai…3-4 bureaucrats hain jo ye sab karna chaah rahe hain". [Translation: IAS officers want money…you have a retired bureaucrat who is after this…there are 3-4 bureaucrats who are trying to do all this.]

Drawing a parallel with Tamil Nadu, the Bench remarked that receivers have been appointed in around 40,000 state temples, and IAS officers are taking all the money. The Court further said that 'acharyas' and 'Shankaracharyas' should be the ones involved in temple trusts, not state officials.

Referring to the large sums of money involved in the temple management, the Court orally said that every advocate was ready to be receiver in Mathura “because there is a lot of money involved”.

The Court added that temple donations belong to the deity, and the same cannot be appropriated by the State. Justice Agarwal further warned the State against setting a dangerous precedent:

"Aap mandir take over ka rasta bana denge, aage aapka mandir chala jaega…karma will come back and haunt. School, education, hospitals sudhariye, wahan dhyan nahi hai, mandiron mein ordinance la rahe hain". [Translation : You will make way for the temple takeover, your temple will be taken over next…karma will come back and haunt. Improve schools, education, hospitals…there is no attention there, they (Govt) are bringing ordinances for temples.]

Furthermore, on the broader constitutional plane, the Court reiterated that the government has no religion. "Ya to constitutional amendment kar dijiye ki state ka religion hai", the bench remarked sarcastically.

With these oral remarks, the court adjourned the matter to August 26.

During the July 30 hearing, the same bench had made scathing remarks against the Ordinance and questioned the constitutional propriety of the State Government for attempting to enter the religious domain.

It had orally remarked thus:

"Ye hum allow nahi karenge ki State ko religion mein enter karne dein. I will ask the government how is government entering into religion…(to state) Aap bahar ki vyavastha dekhiye, andar mat ghusiye…Aap scheme of administration banaiye (temple ki), but aapka aadmi nahi hoga andar…Constitution ka koi religion nahi hai, government ka koi religion nahi hai to kyu ghuss rahe hain?" [Translation: We will not allow the State to enter into religion. I will ask the government as to how is the government entering into religion?...(to the State) You look after the external arrangements; do not enter the internal [affairs]…you may frame a scheme of administration (of the temple), but your person will not be inside…the Constitution has no religion, the Government has no religion, then why are you interfering?]

The Court had further remarked that the Hindu religion is the most affected. He said:

"…iss desh mei hindu ke saath mazak ho raha hai…aap Tirupati Temple manage kar rahe h, aap Vaishno Devi manage kar rahe, ek mosque ek church mahi manage kar rahe…dont get into religion". [Translation : (to state) you are managing the Tirupati Temple, you are managing Vaishno Devi, but you are not managing even a single mosque or church…don't get into religion.]

The Court had also slammed the internal temple managers (Goswamis), accusing them of ruining the sanctity of the temple and chasing money.

Background

The dispute related to the Banke Bihari Temple traces back to longstanding internal differences between the two sects of sewayats of the revered Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan. With around 360 sewayats, the temple has historically been managed privately by descendants and followers of Swami Haridas Ji.

When the matter reached the HC, in March 2025, the Court appointed Advocate Sanjay Goswami as Amicus Curiae to assist in resolving management-related complexities.

Meanwhile, the State promulgated the 2025 ordinance, proposing to create a statutory trust with several State officials as ex-officio trustees.

As per the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, the management of the temple is proposed to be handed over to a statutory trust 'Shri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas' with 11 nominated trustees and up to 7 ex-officio members. All trustees are required to be followers of Sanatan Dharma.

The Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court has already challenged the constitutional competence of the State to issue such an ordinance, pointing out that the temple is a private religious institution managed by the heirs of Swami Haridas Ji.

Another matter related to the temple before the Top Court

The Allahabad High Court in November 2023 gave a nod to the development of the Corridor, a plan proposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government. The Court, however, restrained the UP Government from using Rs. 262. 50 Crores from the bank account of the Deity for the construction of the corridor.

However, on May 15, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order. It permitted the Uttar Pradesh Government to use funds for acquiring 5 acres of land around the temple for corridor development, on the condition that the acquired land shall be registered in the name of the deity.

Later, a temple devotee named Devendra Nath Goswami and one Rasik Raj Goswami filed the MAs before the Top Court, seeking a recall of the judgment, contending that they were not heard.

In their MAs, the applicants have sought a stay on all redevelopment-related activities (acquisition, demolition, construction) until the matter is fully decided, and they also pray for the formation of a heritage and stakeholder consultation committee to ensure any redevelopment is inclusive and transparent.