New Delhi, 4 Aug

In a setback to the Uttar Pradesh government, the Supreme Court on Monday said it would keep in abeyance its 15 May nod to the ambitious scheme to develop the Shri Banke Bihari Temple Corridor at Vrindavan in Mathura for the benefit of devotees as main stakeholders were not heard.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi deprecated the approach of the state government in moving the court in “clandestine manner” and questioned the hurry for enacting an ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 to take over the management of the ancient temple.

The top court said it would appoint a committee headed by a retired high court or district judge to manage the affairs of the temple in the interest of lakhs of devotees besides including the main stakeholders in the managing committee.

The bench told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, "Less said the better. How do you justify the directions passed by the court? The state in the most unfortunate way came to the court in the most clandestine manner without informing the court receiver or stakeholders (members of the family who claimed to be the owner of the temple). Get the directions behind their back and set aside the order of the high court. This is the least thing we expect from the state."

The top court at present is not adjudicating the constitutionality of the ordinance and the high court will look into it.

The bench asked Nataraj to seek instructions while deciding to pass an order on 5 August to keep the 15 May order in abeyance and appoint someone as the managing trustee of the temple to look after the daily affairs.

"This is the land of lord Krishna. He was the first mediator known to the world. Let’s find a way out to resolve the dispute pending for years and develop the area in the interest of lakhs of devotees who visit these iconic religious places. Basic amenities need to be created as nowadays religious tourism is one of the biggest sources of revenue," the bench said.

It assured all the stakeholders, including several warring factions, who claim to be owners of the temple that some responsible person would be given charge to manage the affairs of the temple aside from a mandate to develop the adjoining areas and small temples in nearby localities.

When Nataraj pointed that one person claiming to be from the Goswami community moved the top court for intervention but was not heard by the community, the bench asked if the court-receiver was in-charge of the temple management, why was the person not heard and a response from other warring factions not sought.

The top court further questioned the government of wanting to acquire five-acre land for developing a holding area from the temple funds and not use its money.

"What stopped you from acquiring the entire land and properties from your corpus in public interest? What was the tearing hurry in enacting the ordinance, when the matter was sub-judice? Providing basic amenities and developing the area is the duty of the state. There are numerous instances where the state’s participation has helped in developing the religious places like in Golden Temple in Amritsar," the bench said.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for members of the managing committee, said the order was passed without hearing them and as it was a private temple, they were required to be heard.

The bench said the term "private temple" was a misnomer and the state was trying to acquire the land for the benefit of lakhs of devotees who visit the temple every year.

The top court posted the matter for 5 August while asking Nataraj to seek instructions and clarifying that the constitutionality of the ordinance would be decided by the high court for which it would modify the 15 May order.

The managing committee members and other petitioners who sought the recall or modification of the 15 May order were asked to give certain suggestions with respect to the management of the affairs of the historic temple.

The plea, filed through advocate Tanvi Dubey, of the management committee of the Thakur Shree Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Mathura, challenges the ordinance, which vested the control of the shrine's administration with the state.

On 15 May, the top court allowed an impleadment application filed by the state and paved the way for a Uttar Pradesh government scheme to develop the corridor.