On Tuesday, the Supreme Court sharply questioned the Uttar Pradesh Government for intervening in a private dispute about the Shri Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan. The bench, comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, orally observed that if States start interfering in private matters, it will “hijack” the legal process and lead to a “breakdown of rule of law.”

Read also: Rahul Gandhi Alleges Savarkar’s Family Link with Godse in Pune Defamation Case

The case involved a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking to recall the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment from May 15. That judgment had allowed the Uttar Pradesh Government to use temple funds for a redevelopment project for the temple corridor. This decision was given in a civil case between private parties. However, the State later intervened, leading to this new challenge.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Devendra Nath Goswami, argued that temple funds totaling ₹300 crores were handed over to the State without making them a party in the earlier case. He said, "These are offerings from the public to the temple. The State is taking them. How can a private temple's funds be handed over to the State without proper involvement?"

Read also: Supreme Court Questions Haryana Govt On NHRC's Concerns Over FIR Against Ali Khan Mahmudabad

Justice Nagarathna asked the State’s counsel if they were part of the High Court case. When the response was no, she said, “In what capacity did the State enter into the dispute? If States start interfering in private matters, it will break down rule of law! You cannot hijack the litigation.”

The Allahabad High Court had earlier approved the temple corridor project but barred the State from using ₹262.5 crores from the temple’s funds. However, on May 15, the Supreme Court modified this and allowed the use of funds for acquiring 5 acres of land around the temple, with the condition that the land would be registered in the temple's name.

Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer of Four High Court Chief Justices

The State’s counsel argued that an ordinance, passed on May 26, 2025, was issued to manage the temple’s affairs. However, Justice Nagarathna noted that the ordinance has not been implemented yet as the Assembly is not in session. "Had you not filed an impleadment application, this direction would not have been issued," she remarked.

Justice Sharma suggested filing a review petition, but Sibal insisted that his client must first be made a party. He stated, "You cannot take away the property of the private temple without hearing us. I’m sorry, but you can’t do this."

The Supreme Court ordered the State to file an affidavit with the ordinance details by July 29. However, no notice was issued at this stage.

Case Details: ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS|Diary No. 28487-2025