A Bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma highlighted the potential for vested interests, as advocates appointed as receivers might intentionally delay litigation to retain control over temple affairs for personal benefit.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on Monday (9th Dec), raised serious concerns regarding the administration of temples and the prolonged appointment of advocates as court receivers in Uttar Pradesh, particularly in Mathura district.
A Bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma highlighted the potential for vested interests, as advocates appointed as receivers might intentionally delay litigation to retain control over temple affairs for personal benefit.
The Court emphasized that the judiciary, seen as the “temple of justice,” must not be exploited to serve private interests.
“It appears that issues of temple administration and the appointment of receivers in related suits have become significant challenges for courts, and lucrative opportunities for advocates in Uttar Pradesh, particularly in Mathura. Courts, regarded as temples of justice, cannot be allowed to be misused by individuals with vested interests in prolonging litigation. The process of law must not be abused under the pretense of extended court battles,” the Bench stated.
Directions to Principal District Judge, Mathura
The Court directed the Principal District Judge of Mathura to provide a detailed report on temple-related litigation, including:
- A list of temples embroiled in ongoing litigation and details of court-appointed receivers.
- The duration and status of such cases.
- Names and roles of advocates appointed as court commissioners.
- Details of any remuneration paid to these receivers.
The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on December 19.
Allahabad High Court Observations
The matter followed after an appeal against an August 27 Allahabad High Court order, which criticized the large volume of pending temple-related cases in Uttar Pradesh. The High Court advised against appointing advocates or district officials as receivers, recommending instead that individuals connected to temple management or with a religious inclination toward the deity be chosen.
“Public faith erodes when temples and religious trusts are managed by outsiders instead of individuals belonging to the religious fraternity. Such practices should be curbed at the outset,” the High Court observed.
The High Court further noted that receivership has become a “status symbol” in Mathura. It stressed that practicing lawyers cannot adequately manage temples like those in Vrindavan and Govardhan, which require specialized skills, devotion, and dedication.
The Court urged swift resolution of disputes rather than prolonged litigation under the guise of procedural requirements.
Advocate Abhikalp Pratap Singh represented the appellant in the Supreme Court.
