New Delhi: The Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh Government Monday came under criticism for “the clandestine manner” in which it secured permission from the Supreme Court to use Banke Bihari Temple’s funds for the corridor development project in Mathura and, thereafter, bringing an ordinance that transfers control and administration of the temple to the state.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi was surprised to learn that the SC in May, in an unrelated case, allowed the UP government’s application to divert Banke Bihari Temple’s funds for state activity. It observed that the temple management was not even a party in the case, as the matter pending before the bench that issued the order concerned another temple of Mathura and not Banke Bihari.
It also questioned the “tearing hurry” in which the Uttar Pradesh Government introduced the Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 to take over the temple’s management.
“The matter before this court did not pertain to Banke Bihari temple. A public notice could have been issued… it was not a case of no man’s land. Someone had to be heard on behalf of the temple,” observed Justice Kant, questioning SC’s order as well.
It went on to assail the state’s conduct in the matter. “If the state wanted to carry out any development, what prevented it from doing it as per law? Whether land is private or not, it cannot 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 (the temple authorities), in all fairness,” the bench remarked.
The court was hearing a set of two petitions filed by the Banke Bihari Temple management that has questioned the Ordinance as well as the May order of the SC. The temple management has argued that the state has based its decision to promulgate the Ordinance on the May SC order, which was passed “behind its back”.
The temple management has claimed the case in which SC gave permission to the UP government to use Banke Bihari Temple’s funds for the corridor project dealt with a private dispute emerging from the Gobardhan Temple in Mathura. The UP government intervened in the private dispute and secured an order favorable to itself vis-à-vis the Banke Bihari Temple.
Thereafter, the UP government promulgated the Ordinance to eject the Sewayat Goswamis who have been managing the temple for the past 50 years. The Ordinance proposes a Trust to manage the temple.
The management has also sought recall of SC’s 15 May order by which it permitted the UP government to use the temple money for the construction of the temple corridor.
According to the temple management, the UP government’s move is arbitrary and has violated the doctrine of separation of powers. Both its actions—the application to use the temple funds and Ordinance—the temple management said, frustrates a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad High Court.
This PIL filed in 2022 relates to improvement of temple activities and facilities and several orders have been passed from time to time on it. Moreover, the temple management claimed, the HC had in these proceedings declined the state government’s request to use the temple funds for the corridor work.
The state cannot preempt the judicial proceedings by bringing an order, which the management has described as misuse of the Ordinance-making power, often invoked in case of an emergency.
In a separate petition, the Banke Bihari temple has exclusively challenged the Ordinance to divest the current management of its powers. This Ordinance, the temple management claimed, infringes the rights of the Sewayat Goswamis, who constitute a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution, and enjoy complete autonomy in matters of deciding what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion.
However, the architecture of the Ordinance not just interferes with this right, but destroys the foundation of how the Sewayat Goswamis have been conducting their practices at the temple, the petition claims.
Section 4 of the Ordinance vests the newly-created Trust with full authority to administer the temple’s affairs, including performance of puja, seva and rituals. This displaces the religious rights of the Sewayats to carry out these activities that have historically been regarded as personal religious duties intertwined with proprietary rights, the temple management has claimed in its petition.
Section 5 outlines the Trust Board’s composition, where 7 of 18 members are ex-officio government officers, and the remaining are appointed at the discretion of the state. Only two Sewayat families are allowed on the Trust Board. This marginalises the religious stakeholders, giving them little role as a secular authority. The appointment of a government officer as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) will centralise powers in the hands of a state appointee with no religious linkage, the temple management has claimed.
Section 7 and 9 of the Ordinance empower the Trust and the State to invest the temple money in unsecured investments, purchase, rent properties and oversee or redirect the use of temple funds. Flagging these sections as a serious breach of their rights, the temple management termed them as unconstitutional interference with their essential religious practice, as it deprives its members of sewa offerings.
The Ordinance also suffers from manifest arbitrariness, as it targets only the Banke Bihari Temple. Thus, it violates Article 14 since it is devoid of any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with a legitimate state purpose, the petition adds.
“This comprehensive governmental takeover, despite the explicit disclaimer that the State shall not borrow or take funds, amounts to an indirect but complete expropriation of control over resources traditionally considered integral to the temple’s autonomous functioning and the Goswamis’ stewardship,” submits the temple management’s petition against the Ordinance.
During the hearing on Monday, the bench asked the state what prompted it to hurry up the Ordinance. It advised the state to implement the development plan that was followed to renovate the area around the Golden Temple.
However, during the hearing, the bench also felt that since the HC is already hearing the PIL, the temple management should approach it to challenge the Ordinance. Until the HC decides on the validity of the Ordinance, the SC suggested it would constitute a committee headed by a retired HC judge to oversee the temple management. Meanwhile, the temple rituals will be continued by the family as before, the court said.
The bench listed the matter for a hearing Tuesday, while asking the UP government to get instructions on the court’s proposals.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Power cuts, run-ins & now clash with association. UP power minister AK Sharma under spotlight again