Banke Bihari Temple : Supreme Court Questions UP Govt's Hurry In Ordinance; Proposes To Recall Judgment Allowing State Use Of Temple Funds

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 4) questioned the "tearing hurry" in which the Uttar Pradesh Government promulgated the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, for taking over the management of the Bankey Bihari temple in Vrindavan, Mathura.

The Court also expressed disapproval of the "clandestine manner" in which the Uttar Pradesh Government secured permission from the Supreme Court through the May 15 judgment for the use of temple funds for the corridor development project, by filing an application in a civil dispute.

The Court orally proposed to recall the directions in the May 15 judgment which allowed the State to use the temple funds. The Court also proposed to constitute a committee headed by a retired High Court judge to oversee the management of the temple while the validity of the Ordinance is decided by the High Court.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the hearing of the petitions challenging the Ordinance till tomorrow to enable Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj to get instructions from the Government on the proposals made by the bench. The bench orally expressed that it will relegate the parties to the High Court to challenge the Ordinance and meanwhile, the temple management will be under the committee headed by a retired judge. The temple rituals will be continued by the family as before, the Court said.

The bench orally expressed that the Collector and other authorities will also be a part of the committee. The ASI can also be associated with the committee for a holistic development of the region, the Court further proposed.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the former management of the Banke Bihari Temple, submitted that the Ordinance ejected the Goswamis, who were earlier managing the temple, and vested the management with a trust under the control of the Government. Divan also took exception to the May 15 judgment of the Supreme Court, which allowed the Government to use the temple funds for the corridor development project, saying that the directions were passed "behind the back of the management", as they were not heard. He submitted that the Supreme Court's judgment came in a case that dealt with a private dispute between two sects. He said that the State intervened in the private dispute and secured the orders for the utilisation of the temple funds.

Divan pressed for a "status quo" order, questioning the need for the State to urgently promulgate an Ordinance. "I need a status quo today. 100s of years this has been going on...and suddenly the state passes Ordinance...Ordinance is for emergency measures," Divan pleaded.

Justice Kant at this juncture asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, for the State, how the May 15 judgment could be justified when the affected parties were not heard. "How do you justify the Court's direction? When they were not party?" Justice Kant asked.

ASG Nataraj replied that it was a public temple and the persons who have approached the Court are not recognised as part of the management committee.

Justice Kant however expressed disapproval of the manner in which the directions were passed without notice to the affected parties.

"The matter before this Court did not pertain to Banke Bihari temple. 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 the behalf of the temple. If civil judge was monitoring, 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...temple funds will have to be utilized for pilgrims, can't be pocketed by private persons," Justice Kant said.

Justice Kant said that the State filed an application in a "clandestine manner" which was unacceptable. The judge asked why the State did not acquire the land as per law after paying compensation. 

"If the state wanted to carry out any development, what prevented it from doing as per law? whether land is private or not, that issue can be adjudicated by a court...state is coming in a clandestine manner, not allowing them to be heard...we don't expect this...state should have informed them, in all fairness," Justice Kant said.

"What was the tearing hurry for the Ordinance?" Justice Kant asked the State. He cited the example of how the area around the Golden Temple was developed by acquiring the lands of the nearby residents and asked why a similar approach could not have been taken in the instant case.

To recap, the 2025 UP Ordinance is stated to vest the temple administration with a statutory trust. According to it, the management of the temple and the responsibility of facilities for the devotees shall be handled by the 'Shri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas'. While 11 trustees shall be nominated, a maximum of 7 members can be ex-officio. All government and non-government members shall be followers of Sanatan Dharma.

On July 28, during the hearing of one of the petitions listed today, the Supreme Court asked the management committee of the Temple to find out how many temple managements have been taken over pan-India through legislations.

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.

In November, 2023, the Allahabad High Court gave a nod to the development of a Corridor proposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government. The Court, however, restrained the Government from using Rs. 262.5 crores from the bank account of the deity for the construction of the corridor.

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.

On May 15, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's 2023 order and 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.

Against this judgment, a recall application was filed by a temple devotee named Devendra Nath Goswami, which is pending. During a hearing of this application, the top Court questioned the State of Uttar Pradesh as to how it could intervene in a private dispute related to the Bankey Bihari temple and "hijack" a litigation between private persons.

On July 21, the High Court was told by the Amicus that the state government lacked competence to issue the Ordinance, as the Banke Bihari temple is a private temple and its religious practice is being carried out by the heirs of Swami Hari Das Ji. By issuing the Ordinance, the Government was trying to take control over the temple through 'back doors', he said.

On July 28, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Kant and Bagchi adjourned the hearing in one of the cases challenging constitutionality of the Ordinance, as it was told that a similar case was pending before another bench. The bench was of the view that appropriate listing orders were required from CJI BR Gavai. Subsequently, on the CJI's order, all matters pertaining to Banke Bihari temple were listed before one and the same bench today.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Kapil Sibal and Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate Tanvi Dubey (for petitioners); ASG KM Nataraj and AoR Ruchira Goel (for UP); Sr Advs Navin Pahwa and Vibha Datta Makhija (for respondents)

Case Title:

(1) DEVENDRA NATH GOSWAMI Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 709/2025

(2) MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THAKUR SHREE BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ TEMPLE AND ANR. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 704/2025 (and connected case)

(3) THAKUR SHRI BANKEY BIHARIJI MAHARAJ THROUGH SHEBAIT HIMANSHU GOSWAMI AND ANR. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 734/2025

(4) ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., Diary No. 28487-2025 (and connected case)