Supreme Court questions 'private temple' claim in Banke Bihari case, proposes interim panel for management

Petitioners oppose UP ordinance

The petitions argue that Shri Banke Bihari temple is a private religious institution and that the government's ordinance amounts to indirect state control. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, told the court that the state is trying to use temple funds to buy land and carry out development works without the consent of the temple’s managing body.

He stressed that the temple has always been run by a management committee composed of elected members from the Goswami families and respected members of the Braj community, with elections held every three years. The last such election took place in 2016.

'Temple not a private property'

Countering the argument, Justice Surya Kant said, “How can you call a religious place, where lakhs of devotees visit, a private temple? The deity cannot be private. Only the management can be private.”

The bench questioned why temple funds should go into the pockets of individuals rather than being used for temple development. “It doesn’t appear that the state intends to usurp temple money — they are spending it on development,” the court observed.

Divan, however, argued that the real issue is due process, stating that the state secured court orders without the knowledge of the temple’s managing parties. He raised concerns over how a High Court order in a private civil dispute ended up affecting the entire temple’s management.

Committee proposed, Goswamis to retain religious duties

To ensure smooth administration while legal proceedings continue, the court proposed forming a temporary committee under a retired High Court or senior district judge. This panel would oversee day-to-day operations, including crowd management, safety, and infrastructural improvements. The court stressed that all religious rituals will continue to be conducted by the Goswami families as per tradition. It also hinted that funds could be allocated to the proposed committee, but strictly for development purposes.

No constitutional ruling yet; HC to hear challenge

The bench clarified that it is not ruling on the constitutional validity of the UP ordinance at this point. That issue should first be taken up in the Allahabad High Court. The court also encouraged all parties to mediate and submit suggestions to preserve the temple’s spiritual character while supporting infrastructural development. Justice Surya Kant remarked, “Lord Krishna was the first mediator… we urge you to try mediation too.”

Next hearing on August 5

The bench will continue the hearing on Tuesday, August 5, at 10:30 am. It is likely to decide on the proposed formation of a management committee headed by a retired judge.