Back
vs : Justice Manoj Misra Recuses from Review
The ongoing legal battle between two factions of the has taken a fresh procedural turn as Justice Manoj Misra recused himself from hearing a batch of filed by . These petitions challenge the apex court’s landmark judgment that recognized as an and the rightful owner of the Hare Krishna Temple in Bengaluru. The , announced without elaboration, sends the matter back for constitution of a fresh bench, prolonging a dispute that has already traversed multiple judicial forums over nearly two decades.
The review proceedings arise from the ’s , judgment in , which decisively settled the question of legal identity between the two societies. The bench, then led by Justice Abhay S Oka, overturned a ruling that had favoured . Instead, the apex court upheld the findings that , registered under the , is a distinct with independent governance and full ownership of the temple complex. That judgment was widely seen as a definitive closure to a bitter schism that had simmered for years, with asserting that the Bengaluru organisation was merely its branch.
of Justice Misra
Justice Manoj Misra’s , while routine in terms of judicial practice, carries significant weight given the high stakes of the case. The does not typically disclose reasons for , but it is understood that personal or professional connections, prior involvement, or a may prompt a judge to step aside. In this instance, the development means that the —already the subject of a in —must now be heard by a bench constituted afresh under directions from the Chief Justice of India. Legal observers note that at this stage may further delay an already protracted resolution, though it also ensures that the proceedings remain beyond reproach.
Background of the Dispute
The clash between and is not merely a property dispute but a fundamental contest over institutional identity. , the older and more prominent branch, had long claimed that the Bengaluru society was established as its subordinate unit and therefore could not assert independent ownership of the Hare Krishna Temple—one of the most prominent ISKCON centres in India. , however, countered that it had been registered as a separate society under state law and had operated autonomously for decades, managing the temple and its assets without interference from Mumbai.
The legal battle saw the initially side with in , holding that the Bengaluru society was indeed a branch. That decision was appealed to the , which after years of hearing arguments, reversed the High Court’s finding. The apex court’s judgment meticulously analysed the registration documents, bylaws, and historical conduct of both societies, concluding that possessed a separate legal personality and that the temple property belonged to it. The ruling was a significant victory for the Bengaluru faction and set a precedent for how courts evaluate claims of branch versus independent entity in religious and charitable trusts.
The Judgment
The ’s unanimous decision in was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, along with two other judges. The court held that the mere existence of a shared spiritual lineage or common name does not create a in law. It emphasised that registration under a specific statute, coupled with independent financial management and governance structures, creates a distinct . The judgment also rejected the argument that ’s historical role in establishing the Bengaluru centre gave it proprietary rights. Instead, the court found that the Bengaluru society had acquired the temple land and constructed the complex through its own efforts and funds.
The ruling was hailed by legal experts as a clear application of the principles governing societies and trusts. It reinforced the importance of over oral claims of affiliation. For , the loss was a major setback, prompting it to file alleging that the judgment suffered from .
on Review
When the came up for hearing in , the two-judge bench—comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and A G Masih—delivered a . Justice Maheshwari allowed the applications, holding that the issues raised by warranted an to reconsider the judgment. He found that certain aspects of the case, particularly the historical relationship between the two societies, may not have been fully addressed. Justice Masih, however, dismissed the , ruling that no apparent error had been shown and that the original judgment was sound. He noted that a review is not an and that the petitioners had merely reargued the same points.
The triggered a . Under rules, when a bench is equally divided on a review petition, the matter is placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions. The Chief Justice then typically constitutes a or refers the case to a fresh bench. It was in this context that the matter was listed before Justice Manoj Misra, presumably as part of a newly constituted bench. His now necessitates yet another round of bench formation.
Implications and Next Steps
Justice Misra’s means that the will now be heard by a bench that does not include him. The Chief Justice of India will have to decide whether to constitute a two-judge bench or a , given the . A —possibly of three judges—could provide a more definitive resolution and avoid further fragmentation. However, the timeline remains uncertain. Legal practitioners following the case note that are rarely granted in the , and the already indicates deep disagreement. If the fresh bench dismisses the review, the judgment will stand as final.
From a broader perspective, the ISKCON dispute highlights the challenges that religious and charitable organisations face when internal schisms spill into courts. The legal principles established—especially regarding the independence of registered societies—will likely influence other similar disputes across the country. The case also underscores the importance of clear governance documents and registration status in determining ownership and control of religious properties.
For the legal community, the and serve as a reminder of the procedural complexities that can arise even in seemingly straightforward . The matter will be closely watched not only by ISKCON followers but also by lawyers specialising in trust, society, and property law.
Conclusion
Justice Manoj Misra’s from the ISKCON adds another layer of procedural drama to a case that has already seen a High Court reversal, a definitive judgment, and a on review. The path forward depends on the Chief Justice of India’s decision on bench composition. Until then, the Hare Krishna Temple in Bengaluru remains under the control of , as per the ruling. The , if ultimately dismissed, will put an end to a dispute that has tested the boundaries of status in the context of religious organisations. For now, all eyes are on the ’s administrative machinery to see how swiftly it can reconstitute a bench and bring this long-running saga to a close.
