Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10806

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THAKUR SHREE BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ TEMPLE & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO.704/2025 | M.A. Diary No.28487/2025 in C.A. No.6855/2025 | M.A. Diary No(s).29320/2025 in C.A. No.6855/2025 | W.P.(C) No.709/2025 | M.A. Diary No(s).39950/2025 in C.A. No.6855/2025 | M.A. Diary No(s).39984/2025 in C.A. No.6855/2025 | W.P.(C) No.707/2025 | W.P.(C) No.734/2025 | W.P(C) No.752/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, Mr. Gopal Sankarnararayan, Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Mr. Nitish Raj, Mr. Mahek Maheshwari, Ms. Smuriti Gangadhar, Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Ms. Kenisha Savla, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Nikhil Goel, Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Yash Dubey, Mr. Rongon Choudhury, Mr. Shaurya Rai, Mr. Mekala Ganesh Kumar Reddy, Mr. Vansh Chauhan, Ms. Riddhi Jain, Mr. Akash Vashishtha, Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, Ms. Anukriti Bajpai, Mr. Suhail Dutt, Mr. Azhar Alam, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Ms. Saushiraya Havelia, Ms. Tanvi Anand, Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Mr. Shivam Tomar, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Mr. Avadh Bihar Kaushik, Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. KM Nataraj, Mr. Navin Pahwa, Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Veera Mahuli, Ms. Sharanya Sinha, Dr. A P Singh, Mr. V P Singh, Ms. Richa Singh, Mr. Nihal Shekhawat, Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Ms. Pratima Rani, Mr. Ashish Singh, Mr. Sachin Agarwal, Mr. Pranav Kumar Srivastva, Mr. Sadashiv, Ms. Shilpi Chowdhary, Mr. Narendra Kumar Goswami, Mr. Amarkant Patel, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, Mr. Shiv Kumar, Ms. Vaishnavi, Mr. Sujeet Rajan.

The dismissal of the writ petitions highlights the necessity for adherence to due process in altering the management structure of religious institutions.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 enables the State to oversee Temple management. Facts of the Case: Disputes arose regarding Temple governance, culminating in historical civil suits and recent PILs seeking State intervention for safety improvements that led to the Ordinance. Findings of the Court: The Court acknowledges procedural infirmities in previous orders affecting Temple governance.

Issues: The core question was the legality of the Ordinance amidst existing schemes governing Temple management.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasizes adherence to due process involving all affected parties before altering management structures.

Result: The Writ Petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order.

Table of Content
1. procedural aspects of permissions granted. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Permission to file miscellaneous applications is granted. Permission to appear and argue in-person is granted.

3. Applications for impleadment/intervention are allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.

4. The present batch of Writ Petition(s) and Miscellaneous Application(s) chiefly pertain to the management and development of the Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple at Vrindavan, Mathura in Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter, “the Temple”). The core concerns of the petitioners seem to stem from the promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance , 2025 (hereinafter, “the Ordinance”) which allows the State to establish a Trust for managing the affairs of the Temple.

5. At the outset, we may briefly advert to the factual circumstances relevant for the purposes of the present adjudication. The subject-Temple is admittedly a centuries-old, world-renowned destination for Hindu devotees and pilgrims in India, with significant spiritual and cultural import. It is a matter of record that the Temple was constructed in 1864 on land gifted by Raja Ratan Singh. Over the following decades, differences regarding Temple management arose between two branches of the Temple-administrators, i.e. the Shebait Goswamis/Gosains (hereinafter, “the Goswamis”). These two groups are known as the Raj Bhog and the Shayan Bhog

6. This dispute culminated in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1938 being filed before the Court of Munsif at Mathura, which, vide its judgment dated 31.03.1939, framed a ‘Scheme of Management’ (hereinafter, “1939 Scheme”) for the Temple. Notably, under this Scheme, the Temple Managing Committee was established, comprising of seven Members who were entrusted with critical responsibilities related to the Temple’s day-to-day functioning. Both the Goswami branches elected two Members each, while the remaining three were nominated by the elected Members themselves. Importantly, the Munsif/Civil Judge himself played the key role of settling any disputes between the elected Members regarding the nominations.

7. Several decades later in June 2016, further differences arose between the two groups regarding the nomination of the three Members to be appointed following elections under the aforementioned Scheme. To resolve the deadlock, Case No. 4822 of 2016 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter, “the High Court”) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide order dated 27.07.2016, the High Court directed that, until the issue concerning the management of the Temple was finally adjudicated, the Munsif/Civil Judge, Mathura, would continue to oversee the Temple’s affairs either personally or through a person appointed by him in accordance with the 1939 Scheme. Thus, in effect, while the day-to-day functioning remained with the Goswami Shebaits, all final approvals concerning Temple administration were to be routed through the Civil Judge, Mathura.

8. In 2022, a most unfortunate tragedy occurred on the Temple premises, wherein a stampede caused several injuries and two deaths. Assailing this sorry state of affairs, one Anant Sharma filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing No. 1509 of 2022 before the High Court inter alia praying for the striking down of the 1939 Scheme and handing over of Temple Management to the State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter, “the State”).

9. In those proceedings, the State proposed the establishment of an independent Trust for the management of the Temple, apart from suggesting certain redevelopment plans that would be beneficial for the devotees. The Goswamis’ impleadment applications in this PIL were initially not entertained by the High Court, noting that their rights were not affected by the State’s plans, which chiefly related to developing the Temple’s vicinity. However, they were allowed to assist the Court on the limited aspect of redevelopment. Ultim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document