Today, On 4th August, In the Banke Bihari Temple case, the Supreme Court criticised the UP government for acting without hearing all sides, stating, “A public temple can’t be run without hearing affected parties,” and proposed recalling the order allowing fund use.
The Supreme Court on Monday heard a case related to the control and use of funds of a religious temple.
The Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter.
During the hearing, the bench, including Justice Surya Kant, made it clear that the Court would not go into the constitutionality of the ordinance brought by the State government but would ensure that the temple is managed fairly until the issue is resolved legally.
The case involved concerns raised by Senior Advocate Divan, who told the Court that the State was misusing temple funds even though a Division Bench had earlier stated the funds must remain untouched.
Divan said,
“They are essentially hijacking the funds. This is a private temple,”
In response, the Court remarked,
“It doesn’t seem like the State is misusing the funds; they are being used for temple development.”
Justice Kant disagreed with calling the temple a private place, saying,
“Calling such a religious place private seems misleading when lakhs of devotees visit, it’s clearly of public importance. The management may be private, but the temple and the deity are not.”
Divan then requested the Court to maintain decorum and fairness in the proceedings, stating,
“Please preserve the sanctity of this court. Such orders are being passed behind people’s back.”
Divan further pointed out that no Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the earlier Division Bench order.
He said,
“There’s no SLP challenging the Division Bench order, which clearly stated that our temple funds would remain untouched. It allowed the State to use its own funds for secular purposes like land purchase and development around the temple.”
The Court, however, questioned,
“Even if we recall the judgment, what stops the State from using its plenary powers?”
To this, Divan responded that the very ordinance could be questioned.
He said,
“The ordinance itself can be challenged. Given the circumstances, I’m only seeking status quo, no changes. Ordinances are meant for urgent situations, but this temple has been functioning this way for centuries.”
The Court also questioned the manner in which the directions were passed earlier, saying,
“There can’t be that no one is managing the temple. How can the Court’s directions be justified when the affected parties weren’t even before it?”
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) representing the State said, “It’s a public temple, and these individuals aren’t part of any officially recognized management committee. Many make such claims, but they are unauthorized.”
The Court raised concern about the legality of earlier steps, saying,
“If the civil judge was acting on behalf of the temple management, notice should’ve been issued to him. How can orders be passed without hearing the affected parties?”
Divan assured that a management body existed and added,
“There is a management, and a related application is pending in civil court that’s a separate issue.”
But the Court criticised the earlier process, observing,
“It’s absurd a major temple being overseen by a junior civil judge. At the very least, a public notice should have been given. We will issue notice stating what we intend to do.”
Justice Kant then laid out the Court’s plan, saying,
“We are not going into the constitutionality of the ordinance. Our proposal is to recall this part of the judgment and keep it in abeyance. We plan to appoint a retired High Court judge or a senior retired District Judge as managing trustee to oversee daily temple affairs. The interim committee led by the retired judge will be given limited access to use the temple funds.”
He further added,
“If the State wanted to carry out development, it should’ve followed due process. Whether the land is private can be decided by a court. But here, the State acted behind their back without giving them a chance to be heard which is unfair. Our proposal is to keep part of the judgment in abeyance, appoint a retired High Court or senior District Judge as managing trustee, and let the interim committee handle affairs. The ordinance can be challenged under Article 226. Some temple funds may be used for devotees’ benefit.”
Divan stressed the importance of the petition being heard in the Supreme Court, saying,
“Given the nature of this case it’s important the petition is heard here.”
Justice Kant replied,
“Sometimes we do broaden the scope. The Court acted under the impression that no one was representing the management perhaps that impression came from the State.”
When the State counsel told the Court that the government wanted to buy the land in its own name and not for the temple, the Court asked,
“Then why not acquire the land in the name of the State and use public funds? It’s the State’s duty to provide basic amenities.”
Responding to the Court’s proposal about the interim management, Additional Solicitor General Nataraj said,
“I’ll take instructions regarding the proposed interim arrangement.”
Also Read: Jama Masjid Shamsi Built Over Neelkanth Temple: Court Scheduled To Hear On Jan 18
Finally, Justice Kant made it clear that while the rituals would continue to be handled by the family, the day-to-day management would now be placed in the hands of a retired judge.
He said,
“We are clear on this the rituals will remain with the family while management will be handled by the retired High Court judge. We will resume the matter at 2 PM. The constitutionality of the ordinance should first be challenged before the High Court so you will have that avenue. We will hear the matter again tomorrow at 10:30 AM.”
Case Title: MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THAKUR SHREE BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ TEMPLE AND ANR. V STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 704/2025
Click Here to Read More Reports on Temple