The Supreme Court has stayed the Bombay High Court order restoring control of the Shani Shingnapur temple trust and appointed the Nashik divisional commissioner as administrator. The move comes amid concerns over mismanagement, expiring tenure of trustees, and handling of crores in devotees’ offerings.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the operation of a Bombay High Court order which had restored control of the Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan temple trust at Shingnapur, Maharashtra.
The top court said it would not be appropriate to hand over the management of a temple receiving offerings worth hundreds of crores of rupees to a trust whose term is ending on December 31.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notice to the members of the temple trust while hearing a petition filed by the Maharashtra government.
The state government had challenged the December 12 order passed by the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court.
The Supreme Court ordered that the day-to-day administration of the famous Shani temple would now be handled by the Nashik Divisional Commissioner. The commissioner will be assisted by sub-divisional magistrates to ensure smooth functioning of the temple.
Passing interim directions, the bench said,
“Let the operation of the December 12 order be stayed. The decisions of the collector are also stayed. Having gone through these orders, we direct the commissioner of Nashik division to be appointed as the administrator. Let the officer take charge over smooth day-to-day functioning of the temple,”.
The top court clarified that this temporary arrangement would continue only until a new management committee is formed under the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018.
Expressing serious concern over the trust’s expiring tenure, the bench observed,
“It is dangerous to put you (trust) in charge of hundreds of crores of offerings made by devotees at the time, when the term is set to expire on December 31. We are also not in favour of the administrator continuing as in-charge of the temple,”.
The court also directed the Maharashtra government to submit a clear timeline indicating when the statutory committee would be constituted to manage the temple.
The bench was sharply critical of the conduct of the district collector, who had handed over control of the temple to the trust immediately after the High Court order. The judges noted that this was done without even waiting for the state to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Observing possible political influence, the bench remarked that it appeared the trustees had significant political clout and that the officer may have acted under pressure. Addressing the counsel for the trust, the court said,
“It is shocking that the high court passed the order on December 12 and the officer, without even waiting for the state to file a special leave petition, calls you in his office and hands over the accounts of the temple and other things immediately. We have to understand what was happening there,” and further added that “the officer seems to be under their influence”.
At the beginning of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra government, informed the court that the temple trust had employed more than 2,000 employees and had paid over Rs 2 crore as salaries.
ALSO READ: Banke Bihari Temple Panel Moves Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s ‘Mala Fide’ Ordinance
Questioning the need for such a large workforce, Mehta told the court,
“Why does the trust have to employ over 2000 employees? It appears, we have to recover money from them,”
and added that there was more to the matter than what appeared on the surface.
CJI Surya Kant also expressed concern over the apparent influence of the trustees and observed that even the district collector seemed to be favouring them.
The Supreme Court directed the trustees to file their replies and listed the matter for further hearing in the third week of January.
Mehta also submitted that the conduct of the collector, who had been in office since September, required investigation.
Opposing the state’s submissions, counsel for the temple trust argued that salaries and other expenses of employees had been pending for months and that the existing arrangement had been continuing for years without any issue.
She alleged that the government had failed to follow the statutory procedure and claimed that the actions taken were politically motivated. According to her, the entire move was done at the instance of a state minister, and the High Court had correctly restored the management of the temple to the trust.
Earlier, on December 12, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court had struck down the Maharashtra government’s decision to appoint the Ahilyanagar district collector as administrator of the Shingnapur trust.
The High Court had held that the government’s action was illegal and beyond the scope of the Shingnapur Trust Act, 2018.
The High Court had observed that the actions taken by the administrator and the committee constituted by him were without authority and therefore illegal.
It had ordered restoration of the previous position and quashed the government resolution dated September 22, which had brought the Act into force while simultaneously appointing the collector as administrator.
The High Court had also set aside the collector’s communication dated September 30, which had constituted a committee to manage the trust. It directed that all movable and immovable properties of the trust be handed back to the erstwhile trustees within seven days.
The trust was also allowed to operate its bank accounts until the state framed rules and constituted a management committee under the Act.
The High Court had noted that the trustees were elected in December 2020 for a five-year term ending on December 31, 2025.
Before the High Court, the Maharashtra government had alleged serious mismanagement by the trust. It had claimed that while the trust showed employment of 2,474 people on paper, physical verification revealed that only 153 employees were actually present.
Read More Reports On Temple Management
