A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi deprecated the strategy of the state authorities in transferring the court docket in “clandestine method” and questioned the hurry for enacting an ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Belief Ordinance, 2025 to take over the administration of the traditional temple.
The highest court docket mentioned it might appoint a committee headed by a retired excessive court docket or district choose to handle the affairs of the temple within the curiosity of lakhs of devotees apart from together with the principle stakeholders within the managing committee.
The bench instructed Extra Solicitor Common Okay M Nataraj, showing for the Uttar Pradesh authorities, “Much less mentioned the higher. How do you justify the instructions handed by the court docket? The state in essentially the most unlucky manner got here to the court docket in essentially the most clandestine method with out informing the court docket receiver or stakeholders (family members who claimed to be the proprietor of the temple). Get the instructions behind their again and put aside the order of the excessive court docket. That is the least factor we anticipate from the state.”
The highest court docket at current will not be adjudicating the constitutionality of the ordinance and the excessive court docket will look into it.
The bench requested Nataraj to hunt directions whereas deciding to go an order on August 5 to maintain the Might 15 order in abeyance and appoint somebody because the managing trustee of the temple to take care of the day by day affairs. “That is the land of lord Krishna. He was the primary mediator recognized to the world. Let's discover a manner out to resolve the dispute pending for years and develop the world within the curiosity of lakhs of devotees who go to these iconic spiritual locations. Fundamental facilities must be created as these days spiritual tourism is among the largest sources of income,” the bench mentioned. It assured all of the stakeholders, together with a number of warring factions, who declare to be house owners of the temple that some accountable particular person could be given cost to handle the affairs of the temple except for a mandate to develop the adjoining areas and small temples in close by localities.
When Nataraj pointed that one particular person claiming to be from the Goswami neighborhood moved the highest court docket for intervention however was not heard by the neighborhood, the bench requested if the court-receiver was in-charge of the temple administration, why was the particular person not heard and a response from different warring factions not sought.
The highest court docket additional questioned the federal government of wanting to amass five-acre land for growing a holding space from the temple funds and never use its cash.
“What stopped you from buying your entire land and properties out of your corpus in public curiosity? What was the tearing hurry in enacting the ordinance, when the matter was sub-judice? Offering primary facilities and growing the world is the obligation of the state. There are quite a few cases the place the state's participation has helped in growing the spiritual locations like in Golden Temple in Amritsar,” the bench mentioned.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, showing for members of the managing committee, mentioned the order was handed with out listening to them and because it was a personal temple, they had been required to be heard.
The bench mentioned the time period “non-public temple” was a misnomer and the state was attempting to amass the land for the good thing about lakhs of devotees who go to the temple yearly.
The highest court docket posted the matter for August 5 whereas asking Nataraj to hunt directions and clarifying that the constitutionality of the ordinance could be determined by the excessive court docket for which it might modify the Might 15 order.
The managing committee members and different petitioners who sought the recall or modification of the Might 15 order had been requested to provide sure recommendations with respect to the administration of the affairs of the historic temple.
The plea, filed by advocate Tanvi Dubey, of the administration committee of the Thakur Shree Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Mathura, challenges the ordinance, which vested the management of the shrine's administration with the state.
On Might 15, the highest court docket allowed an impleadment software filed by the state and paved the way in which for a Uttar Pradesh authorities scheme to develop the hall.
