Supreme Court Halts UP Ordinance, Forms Committee for Bankey Bihari Temple Management

New Delhi — In a significant assertion of judicial oversight, the Supreme Court of India has intervened in the administration of the revered Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC), led by former Allahabad High Court Judge Ashok Kumar, to oversee the temple's day-to-day affairs. This move effectively sidelines, for now, the state government's attempt to take control through the controversial Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025.

The Court has stayed the operation of the ordinance's provisions that empower the state to form a managing trust, pending a final decision on its constitutional validity by the Allahabad High Court. This interim order underscores a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battles surrounding the management of one of India's most prominent religious sites, highlighting deep-seated issues of administrative deadlock, factionalism among traditional custodians, and the welfare of millions of devotees.

Context: A History of Mismanagement and Legislative Action

The Supreme Court's intervention comes in response to a batch of writ petitions challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's ordinance. The Court's order paints a stark picture of the temple's condition, which has long been plagued by internal strife and administrative inefficiency.

"We are pained to observe that the previous administerial deadlock(s) and in-fighting have only worsened the problems plaguing the Temple, causing much distress to the pilgrims – who are left without any amenities or redress," the bench noted.

The Court observed that despite receiving donations amounting to "hundreds of crores," successive managements had failed to take tangible steps to provide basic facilities for the vast number of devotees. The order specifically points to the factionalism among the Goswami Shebaits (the traditional priestly custodians), whose continuous litigation in civil courts has contributed to a state of "administrative inaction."

Faced with this situation, the Uttar Pradesh government promulgated the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, aiming to establish a state-controlled trust for the temple's management. This move, however, was immediately challenged by various groups, including the Shebaits, leading to the current proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Interim Solution: A High-Powered Committee

Recognizing that a constitutional challenge to the ordinance would require considerable time for adjudication by the High Court, the Supreme Court crafted a robust interim solution. Deeming the pre-existing ad-hoc management "wholly ineffective and inefficient," the bench established a multi-member HPC to fill the administrative void.

Headed by Justice Ashok Kumar, the committee comprises a blend of judicial, administrative, and domain experts, including: - Shri Mukesh Mishra, a retired District & Sessions Judge. - The sitting District & Sessions Judge, Mathura. - The Munsif/Civil Judge, Mathura. - Key administrative officers like the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police of Mathura. - Technical experts, including a renowned architect and a representative from the Archaeological Survey of India. - Four representatives from the two contending Goswami groups, ensuring stakeholder participation.

The Court has mandated that the HPC focus not only on daily administration but also on the "holistic development of the Temple and its vicinity." This includes improving essential amenities like clean drinking water, functional washrooms, crowd management corridors, and special facilities for the elderly and persons with disabilities. The committee is empowered to negotiate for land purchases for expansion and, should negotiations fail, the state government is directed to initiate acquisition proceedings.

A crucial directive clarifies the role of the traditional priests: "no other Goswami or sevayat shall be associated or allowed to interfere or impede in any way in the managing of the Temple's critical functions, except in the practice of conducting puja/sewa and offering prasad to the deity."

Legal Scrutiny and Procedural Rectification

Beyond the administrative restructuring, the Supreme Court's order carries significant legal weight, particularly in its handling of a previous judicial order and the principle of procedural fairness.

The bench withdrew directions from a May 15, 2025, judgment by a coordinate bench that had permitted the state to use temple funds for the ambitious Vrindavan corridor development project. The Court identified a "foundational procedural infirmity" in the earlier order, noting that key stakeholders, namely the Shebait Goswamis, were not heard before the decision was passed.

"To allow substantive directions on a matter of such significance to be issued in collateral proceedings, especially in absentia of the necessary stakeholders, may not be in conformity with procedural fairness and judicial best-practices," the bench asserted.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the Allahabad High Court, in a judgment dated November 8, 2023, had already expressly denied the state's request to utilize temple funds for land acquisition. As the state had never appealed this decision, it had attained finality. The Supreme Court stated that its civil appellate jurisdiction could not be used to "effectively set aside the High Court’s judgment without any formal appeal or challenge being placed before it."

This corrective action restores the legal position concerning temple funds to the status quo ante, reinforcing the principles of natural justice and the finality of unappealed judgments.

The Path Forward: A Mandate for the High Court

The Supreme Court has relegated the primary question of the ordinance's constitutionality to the Allahabad High Court, requesting a decision within one year from the filing of the writ petitions. This sets the stage for a detailed legal examination of the state's power to legislate on the administration of religious institutions, a recurring and often contentious issue in Indian constitutional law.

In the interim, the HPC's performance will be under close watch. Its ability to navigate the complex dynamics of temple administration, stakeholder interests, and devotee welfare will likely influence future judicial and legislative approaches to managing major religious endowments in the country. The state government, having not objected to the committee's formation, is now positioned as a facilitator for the court-mandated development plan.

The order, arising from cases including DEVENDRA NATH GOSWAMI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH and MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THAKUR SHREE BANKEY BIHARI JI MAHARAJ TEMPLE AND ANR. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. , serves as a powerful reminder of the judiciary's role as a constitutional arbiter, stepping in to balance state power, individual rights, and the public interest in the proper governance of shared cultural and religious heritage.