'What's the tearing hurry?' SC questions UP's Bankey Bihari ordinance
What's the story
The Supreme Court has questioned the Uttar Pradesh government's "tearing hurry" to pass the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. The ordinance hands over the management of the Bankey Bihari temple in Vrindavan, Mathura, to the government. During the hearing, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also expressed concern over the "clandestine manner" in which the state secured permission through a previous judgment (May 15) for the use of temple funds for corridor development projects.
Fund usage
Court suggests recalling Lodhachedz May 15 judgment
The court suggested recalling its May 15 judgment, which allowed the state to use temple funds for development projects. The bench proposed forming a committee headed by a retired high court judge to oversee temple management while the ordinance's validity is decided. The court adjourned further hearings till Tuesday, asking Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj to get government instructions on these proposals.
Management dispute
'May 15 judgment allowed fund usage without hearing affected parties'
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the former temple management, slammed the ordinance for removing Goswamis from their roles and placing a government-controlled trust in charge. He also criticized the May 15 judgment for allowing fund usage without hearing affected parties. Divan pressed for a "status quo" decree, saying, "100s of years this has been going on...and suddenly the state passes Ordinance...Ordinance is for emergency measures." At this point, Justice Kant questioned how directions were passed without notice to those affected.
Court inquiry
Justice Kant asks why state didn't acquire land legally
Justice Kant slammed the state for its "clandestine manner" of filing applications and not informing affected parties. He asked why the state didn't acquire land legally after paying compensation. The judge also suggested a public notice could have been issued regarding pending disputes between groups. "It was not a case of No Man's Land. Someone had to be heard on the behalf of the temple," he said.
Judge
Judge sites Golden Temple as example
Justice Kant further said that if a civil judge was monitoring, the judge could have issued notice. "Some public notice should have been issued by this Court...that on account of the pending dispute between the warring groups...temple funds will have to be utilized for pilgrims, can't be pocketed by private persons." He gave the example of how the area around Golden Temple was developed by acquiring land from nearby citizens and asked why the same thing couldn't have been done.
Legal proceedings
Backstory
In November 2023, the Allahabad High Court approved the proposal for a corridor to manage crowd. However, on July 21, the Amicus Curiae informed the high court that the state government lacked the authority to issue the Ordinance since the Banke Bihari temple is a private temple whose religious practices are carried out by Swami Hari Das Ji's heirs. By issuing the Ordinance, the government was attempting to gain control of the temple via 'back doors,' the petitioner stated.