The Supreme Court on August 4 raised serious concerns over the Uttar Pradesh government’s urgency in passing the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, which seeks to transfer the management of the historic Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan to a statutory trust.
The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi not only questioned the "tearing hurry" of the ordinance but also expressed dissatisfaction over the "clandestine" manner in which the state secured court directions—particularly the May 15 judgment, which allowed temple funds to be used for a corridor development project.
“The State filed an application in a clandestine manner, not allowing affected parties to be heard... this is not acceptable,” Justice Kant observed.
Read also:- Supreme Court Shares Contact List for VC Hearings on 4 August 2025
The bench orally suggested the recall of its own May 15 directions permitting the use of temple funds and proposed the constitution of a committee led by a retired High Court judge to manage the temple affairs. The Collector, other local authorities, and ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) could also be included to ensure holistic development of the area.
While hearing the matter, the Court adjourned the petitions challenging the Ordinance until August 5, instructing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj to seek instructions from the government regarding the Court’s proposals.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the former temple management, argued that the May 15 judgment allowed the government to utilize temple funds without hearing the sewayats (temple priests). He termed it a “behind the back” decision, stressing that the ruling arose from a case concerning a private dispute between two sects, not a public matter.
Read also:- Supreme Court Cancels Court No.16 Sitting on 4 August 2025, Cases Rescheduled
“I need a status quo today. This tradition has existed for centuries, and suddenly the state passes an Ordinance... Ordinance is meant for emergencies,” Divan argued.
Justice Kant also questioned why the affected parties were not heard before passing the May 15 order.
“What was the tearing hurry for the Ordinance?” Justice Kant asked, drawing a comparison with the planned development around the Golden Temple, where land was acquired lawfully.
Background
The Banke Bihari Temple has been traditionally managed by sewayats, primarily the descendants of Swami Haridas Ji, with around 360 active sewayats.
In November 2023, the Allahabad High Court permitted the state’s proposed corridor development but prohibited the use of Rs. 262.5 crores from the temple's funds.
Read also:- SC Closes Wife's Transfer Plea After Mutual Divorce Settlement Between Parties
However, in May 2025, the Supreme Court modified this, permitting the state to acquire 5 acres of land using temple funds, provided the land is registered in the deity's name. This triggered strong opposition and led to the recall application by Devendra Nath Goswami, now under consideration.
On July 21, the Amicus Curiae informed the Allahabad High Court that the government lacked the authority to issue the Ordinance, arguing that the temple is a private religious institution, and the move was an attempt to take control through “backdoor entry.”
On July 28, all related matters were consolidated under a single Supreme Court bench by the Chief Justice’s orders, ensuring coherent judicial proceedings.
The 2025 Ordinance proposes creating the ‘Shri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas’, comprising 11 trustees, including up to 7 ex-officio members. All members, government or private, must be followers of Sanatan Dharma. The trust would be responsible for the temple’s administration and the facilities provided to pilgrims.
- Devendra Nath Goswami vs. State of UP & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 709/2025
- Management Committee of Thakur Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple & Anr. vs. State of UP & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 704/2025
- Thakur Shri Bankey Bihariji Maharaj through Shebait Himanshu Goswami & Anr. vs. State of UP & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 734/2025
- Ishwar Chanda Sharma vs. State of UP & Ors., Diary No. 28487-2025
Read also:- SC Closes Wife's Transfer Plea After Mutual Divorce Settlement Between Parties