Supreme Court: While considering the petitions and applications pertaining to the management and development of the Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple at Vrindavan, Mathura in Uttar Pradesh, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., directed the establishment of a High-Powered Temple Management Committee (“the Committee”) under the Chairmanship of Justice Ashok Kumar, Former Judge, Allahabad High Court, to oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning inside and outside of the Bankey Bihari Temple, subject to the ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court.
The Court further modified the order passed by the coordinate Bench of the Court in Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1135, vis-a-vis directions issued for Bankey Bihari Temple, thereby restoring the legal position to status quo ante.
Background and Legal Trajectory:
Bankey Bihari Temple is a historic and world-renowned destination for Hindu devotees and pilgrims in India, with significant spiritual and cultural import. 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 (“the Goswamis”). These two groups are known as the Raj Bhog and the Shayan Bhog. This dispute culminated in Civil Suit before the Court of Munsif at Mathura, which, vide its judgment dated 31-03-1939, framed a ‘Scheme of Management’ (“1939 Scheme”) for the Temple.
Under the 1939 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.
Thereafter in 2016, further differences arose between the two groups regarding the nomination of the three Members to be appointed following elections under the 1939 Scheme. To resolve the deadlock, Allahabad 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, whereas all final approvals concerning Temple administration were to be routed through the Civil Judge, Mathura.
Then in 2022, a stampede in Bankey Bihari Temple caused several injuries and two deaths. This incident led to a PIL seeking striking down of the 1939 Scheme and handing over of Temple Management to the State of Uttar Pradesh. During the proceedings for the PIL, 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.
Ultimately, the High Court vide order dated 08-11-2023, approved the State’s plans for developing a ‘Temple Corridor’ by acquiring and developing 5 acres of land proximate to the Temple, to better ensure public health and safety. However, the High Court did not allow the State to utilize any funds from the Temple/deity’s account in furtherance of this exercise and instead directed that all the expenses were to be borne by the State exchequer.
Parallelly, in Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1135, the coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a challenge to the proper administration of the Sri Giriraj Temple at Govardhan, Mathura, enlarged the appeal’s scope and impleaded the State of Uttar Pradesh with a view to improve the conditions and facilities of various temples located in the ‘Braj’ region of Uttar Pradesh which, inter alia, includes the Bankey Bihari Temple. Furthermore, in the same ruling, the Bench allowed the State to utilize Bankey Bihari Temple’s funds for acquisition of the aforementioned 5 acres of land for redevelopment, with the caveat that the land would be registered in the deity’s name — thereby essentially modifying the High Court’s directions pertaining to the exclusive use of State funds.
Subsequently, applications were filed seeking the modification of the Court’s observations and directions in Ishwar Chanda Sharma (supra), so far as the same pertained to the use of funds from the Bankey Bihari Temple for acquisition of land by the State.
Meanwhile, the State of Uttar Pradesh promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 (“the Ordinance”) contemplating the establishment of a Trust for managing the affairs of the Temple and ostensibly overturning the longstanding 1939 Scheme.
The centre of the issue in the present batch of petitions stemmed from the promulgation of the Ordinance.
Court’s Assessment and Findings:
The Court noted that the coordinate Bench’s order in Ishwar Chanda Sharma (supra) requires certain modifications/clarifications. That order purportedly directed for the redevelopment of the Bankey Bihari Temple’s vicinity through the employment of Temple funds. However, the Court found that such directions suffered from a foundational procedural infirmity i.e., the principal affected parties, including the Shebait Goswamis, who have been administering the Temple, were not heard prior to the passing of said order. The administration and management of Bankey Bihari Temple were never a point of controversy in Ishwar Chanda Sharma (supra). The Court pointed out that to allow substantive directions on a significant matter 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 Court further noted that the Allahabad High Court in its order dated 8-11-2023, had expressly declined the State’s prayer to utilize Temple funds for land acquisition as part of the proposed redevelopment plan; and that judgment had attained finality having never been challenged by the State in any appropriate appellate proceedings. Henceforth, the Supreme Court in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction, could not have effectively set aside the High Court’s judgment without any formal appeal or challenge being placed before it.
Therefore, the Court deemed it necessary to modify the order in Ishwar Chanda Sharma (supra) and restored the legal position to status quo ante. The rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed in terms of the High Court’s judgment dated 08-11-2023, and as per the directions which the Court will issue in the present order. Therefore, the Court expunged Paras 16 to 20 and Para 24 in Ishwar Chanda Sharma (supra).
Coming onto the constitutional challenge to the Ordinance, the Court did not see any valid ground to entertain the challenge directly as it found no compelling reason for the petitioners to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution at this juncture. The Court opined that the affected persons/petitioners have an equally efficacious remedy available under Article 226, viz. approaching the High Court. Furthermore, the Allahabad High Court has dealt with the contentious issue of the Temple’s management on a plethora of previous occasions. The Court further issued request to the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court when the writ petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Ordinance are filed, the same may be listed before a Division Bench.
Acknowledging that that the petitioners’ challenge to the Ordinance will take some time in proper adjudication. The Court therefore stayed the operation of the Ordinance’s provisions in the interregnum, only to the extent they grant the State powers to constitute a Trust for managing the Temple’s affairs. Consequently, the constitution of the Shree Bankey Bihar Ji Temple Trust, as defined in Section 3 of the Ordinance and its composition, as contained in Section 5, shall be kept in abeyance till the question of validity of the Ordinance is finally resolved by the High Court. The Court clarified that this interim direction shall not preclude the State from ratification of the Ordinance in the State Assembly.
The High Court was requested to decide the controversy expeditiously and preferably within one year of the fresh writ petitions being filed.
High-Powered Committee for Bankey Bihari Temple Management:
The Court considered that its afore-stated finding and directions shall effectively leave the management of the Bankey Bihari Temple in limbo since the ad-hoc arrangement of Temple-management has been wholly ineffective and inefficient in discharging its duties over the years. “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 Court observed that despite the substantial donations received by the Temple running into hundreds of crores, no tangible steps appear to have been taken by the successive managements for providing essential facilities to the scores of devotees visiting the Temple. The Court further took note of the information that the Goswami Shebaits remain divided into factions and continue to litigate before the civil courts, further contributing to administrative inaction.
Therefore, the Court felt that a High-Powered Managing Committee headed by an impartial person with considerable experience and ability is required to be constituted to run the day-to-day affairs of the Temple.
Therefore, the Court directed the creation of a Committee with the following composition:
Chairman
Justice Ashok Kumar, Former Judge, Allahabad High Court
Members
- Mukesh Mishra, Retired District & Sessions Judge, Uttar Pradesh Judiciary
- District & Sessions Judge, Mathura
- Munsif, Mathura/Civil Judge, Mathura
- District Magistrate, Mathura/Collector, Mathura (Member cum-Member Secretary)
- Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura
- Municipal Commissioner, Mathura
- Vice Chairman, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority
- A renowned Architect, (to be engaged by the Chairperson)
- A representative from the Archaeological Survey of India
-
2 Persons each from both the Goswami groups
The Court stated that the Committee may deal with a variety of issues incidental to the proper functioning of the Bankey Bihari Temple, which include, but are not limited to, the provision of essential amenities such as clean drinking water, functional washrooms, adequate shelter and seating, dedicated corridors for crowd movement, and special arrangements for the elderly, women, children, and persons with disabilities. Effective crowd control, safety protocols, and maintenance of public order during peak days and festivals are also integral to the responsible administration of the Temple, which sees exceptionally high daily footfall.
Important Additional Directions:
The Committee shall make an endeavour to plan the holistic development of the Temple and its vicinity, for which they may privately negotiate suitable purchase of the requisite land. In case no such negotiation fructifies, the State Government is directed to proceed with acquisition of the required land in accordance with law.
The Court clarified that besides the 4 Members in the Committee representing the Goswamis, 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.
The Chairperson shall be the final authority on all matters regarding the Committee’s functioning, including but not limited to its Rules of Procedure, scheduling of meetings, and other ancillary matters.
[Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1666, decided on 8-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Sankarnararayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, AOR Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Nitish Raj, Adv. Mr. Mahek Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Smuriti Gangadhar, Adv. Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv. Ms. Kenisha Savla, Adv. M/s MPS Legal, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, AOR Mr. Malak Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Yash Dubey, Adv. Mr. Rongon Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Rai, Adv. Mr. Mekala Ganesh Kumar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Vansh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Akash Vashishtha, Adv. Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Anukriti Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Azhar Alam, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Jha, AOR Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Ms. Saushiraya Havelia, Adv. Mr. Oleander D Singh, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shivam Tomar, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranjal Mishra, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, AOR Mr. Avadh Bihar Kaushik, AOR Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Adv.
For respondents: KM Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Ms. Veera Mahuli, Adv. Mr. Sharanya Sinha, Adv. Dr. A P Singh, Adv. Mr. V P Singh, Adv. Ms. Richa Singh, Adv. Mr. Nihal Shekhawat, Adv. Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Pratima Rani, Adv. Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Mr. Sachin Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Pranav Kumar Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AOR Ms. Shilpi Chowdhary, AOR Mr. Narendra Kumar Goswami, Adv. Mr. Amarkant Patel, Adv. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Rajan, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
