A Sevayat of the historic Maa Chandi Devi Temple in Haridwar has moved the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order appointing a receiver, calling it arbitrary and passed without notice or evidence. The plea argues the temple was managed efficiently by a court-appointed panel since 2012.
New Delhi: Today, on July 24, the Sevayat (priest and caretaker) of the ancient Maa Chandi Devi Temple in Haridwar has approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking a stay on the Uttarakhand High Court’s order that transferred the temple’s management to the Badri Kedar Temple Committee.
The Sevayat, Mahant Bhawani Nandan Giri, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) through advocate Ashwani Dubey, arguing that the high court passed this decision without any proper evidence, complaint, or even hearing him.
Also Read: Jama Masjid Shamsi Built Over Neelkanth Temple: Court Scheduled To Hear On Jan 18
According to the petitioner, the High Court’s order is
“arbitrary, illegal, and perverse and outside the pleadings and without any specific relief that too in violation of principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard who is the Sevayat/Chief Trustee.”
He further stated that
“the petitioner is aggrieved by the directions passed in Para Nos. 15 to 18 of the impugned order and henceforth, filing the instant SLP seeking to quash / set aside the impugned directions which is beyond the scope of the bail petition.”
The case has roots in a criminal matter that was being heard by the High Court. While deciding on an anticipatory bail plea of an accused named Reena Bisht, the High Court also passed directions regarding the temple’s management, which has now become controversial.
Reena Bisht had filed the bail plea after an FIR was lodged by Geetanjali, the wife of Rohit Giri—the head priest of the temple—on May 21.
Also Read: Jama Masjid Shamsi Built Over Neelkanth Temple: Court Scheduled To Hear On Dec 17
The FIR accused Bisht and seven others of attempting to run over Geetanjali’s son with a vehicle on May 14. Meanwhile, Rohit Giri was arrested by Punjab Police on the same day in a separate molestation case and is currently in judicial custody.
The High Court observed that Rohit Giri was living with Reena Bisht even though his divorce was still pending.
It also noted that Bisht had given birth to Giri’s child in January. Citing the overall situation, the High Court remarked,
“Trustees of the temple are creating a noxious atmosphere… and there is complete mismanagement in the trust. It cannot be ruled out that there may be misappropriation of donations.”
Mahant Bhawani Nandan Giri contends that such serious allegations against the temple’s trustees were made without any formal complaint or inquiry.
He emphasized that since the year 2012, a two-member committee consisting of the District Magistrate (DM) and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Haridwar has been overseeing the temple’s functioning, as per a High Court order.
This arrangement, according to the petitioner, was running smoothly and without any complaints.
The plea stated,
“There is neither a single complaint nor the question of mismanagement or misappropriation has ever been flagged out by the committee consisting of DM and SSP, Haridwar appointed by the High Court,”
The temple, according to the plea, was established in the 8th Century by Jagadguru Sri Adi Shankaracharya, and since then, the petitioner’s ancestors have been managing its day-to-day rituals and administration as Sevayats.
Hence, the petitioner strongly objects to the High Court’s decision to appoint a receiver and give management control to the Badri Kedar Temple Committee.
The plea argues that this was done “erroneously” and that the existing DM-SSP panel had been working with due diligence.
Further criticizing the High Court’s action, the petitioner highlighted that
“the high court did not issue notice and passed the impugned directions.”
He contends that passing such serious directions, especially involving religious institutions, without even issuing a notice or hearing the party affected, violates the principles of natural justice.
The matter is now expected to come up before the Supreme Court next week, where the petitioner is seeking to get the High Court’s directions in Para Nos. 15 to 18 of the impugned order set aside, as they go beyond the scope of the bail proceedings and affect the fundamental rights and duties of the Sevayat.
Case Title:
Mahant Bhawani Nandan Giri vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others
Click Here to Read More Reports on Temple
