Supreme Court Slams UP Government in Banke Bihari Temple Case
The Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government over its intervention in the management and redevelopment of the historic Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan. During a hearing on Monday, the court proposed forming an interim committee led by a retired judge to oversee the temple’s operations, while also keeping in abeyance a previous judgement that allowed the state to use temple funds for redevelopment.
Invoking Lord Krishna as the “first mediator”, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi urged the parties involved to resolve the matter through dialogue. The court emphasized the need for transparency and constitutional due process, criticizing the manner in which the state had “clandestinely” secured a Supreme Court nod on May 15 to utilize ₹500 crore from temple funds.
Built in 1862, the Banke Bihari temple is one of India’s most revered religious sites, attracting lakhs of pilgrims annually. The temple is traditionally managed by Shebaits, a hereditary group of priests responsible for daily rituals and administration. The recent controversy arose after the UP government passed an ordinance that effectively removed the hereditary management and established a state-controlled trust, citing the need to improve infrastructure following a 2022 stampede incident that claimed two lives during Janmashtami.
The apex court took a serious view of this move, questioning the state’s legal authority to interfere in what it described as a private dispute. “Was the State a party to the proceedings?” asked Justice Kant. “If states start entering private disputes between parties, there will be a total breakdown of the rule of law.”
The court highlighted that the earlier judgement did not directly pertain to the Banke Bihari temple and criticized the state for not issuing public notices or offering an opportunity for the temple’s traditional managers to be heard. It expressed surprise that no receiver had been appointed by the court to manage the situation, and asked what prevented the state from acquiring land for redevelopment through lawful compensation procedures.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the UP government, was asked to consult with state officials and respond to the court’s proposal by Tuesday morning. The court suggested placing the temple under the management of a former High Court judge or senior retired district judge on an interim basis. This committee would be empowered to manage temple affairs and use a portion of the funds to improve infrastructure and ensure the safety of devotees.
The temple trust has been given the liberty to challenge the constitutional validity of the ordinance in the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court made it clear that until such adjudication takes place, the state should not interfere with the temple’s rituals or administrative processes.
The controversy dates back to September 2023, when the Allahabad High Court directed the UP government to come up with a corridor plan to better manage crowd pressure and ensure safety after the tragic incident the previous year. The state subsequently prepared a redevelopment proposal worth ₹500 crore, which it planned to finance using the temple’s funds—an action that sparked outrage from the Shebaits and devotees.
The court’s oral observations reflect growing judicial concern over government overreach in religious institutions. In a related hearing in May, a separate bench had warned against the state “hijacking” private litigations. Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma had then remarked, “A state filing an application and hijacking private disputes is not permissible.”
With the constitutional validity of the UP government’s ordinance now set to be tested in the Allahabad High Court, the future of the Banke Bihari temple’s administration remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision to pause the state’s redevelopment plan signals a firm stance on maintaining judicial oversight over matters involving religious freedoms and public interest.
