The Supreme Court on August 8 constituted a high-powered committee headed by former Allahabad High Court Justice Ashok Kumar to oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning of the Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple at Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh's Mathura [Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others].
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that panel’s mandate would include provision of basic amenities such as clean drinking water, functional washrooms, adequate shelter, dedicated crowd corridors and special facilities for vulnerable devotees, apart from crowd control and safety protocols during peak days.
The committee will also be empowered to plan holistic development of the temple and its vicinity, including land acquisition if required.
"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 material on record indicates 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. We are, therefore, satisfied that a high-powered managing committee is required to be constituted to run the day-to-day affairs of the Temple," Court said.
Other members of the panel include retired District & Sessions Judge Mukesh Mishra, the District & Sessions Judge of Mathura, the Munsif/Civil Judge of Mathura, the District Magistrate of Mathura (who will also serve as Member Secretary), the Senior Superintendent of Police of Mathura, the Municipal Commissioner of Mathura, the Vice-Chairman of the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, a representative from the Archaeological Survey of India, a renowned architect and two representatives each from the temple’s two Goswami groups.
The Court passed the order while declining to entertain the challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, which seeks to replace the 1939 Scheme of Management with a State-controlled trust. The Bench observed that it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioners and other affected persons to pursue their remedies before the High Court.
The Bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the constitutional challenge to the ordinance and urged the High Court to decide the matter within one year.
Noting that adjudication of the challenge may take some time, the Court directed that, in the interim, operation of the ordinance shall remain stayed only to the extent that it confers power upon the State 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 (or any Act in relation thereto subsequently passed by the State Legislature), is finally resolved by the High Court," Court ordered.
The Court also stayed the July 2025 order of a single-judge of Allahabad High Court, which had questioned the State’s competence to issue the ordinance.
"We stay the operation of the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Judge of the High Court in Matters under Article 227 No. 15949/2024....we request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court that as and when the writ petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Ordinance are filed, the same may be listed before a Division Bench. The matter under Article 227 No. 15949/2024 shall also thereafter be placed before the same Bench," Court noted
The Court also modified its earlier decision in Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma, where another Bench had allowed the State to use temple funds to buy land for a redevelopment project. It restored the position set by the Allahabad High Court’s November 8, 2023 order which had barred such use of funds.
The Court said the High Court’s decision had become final because the State never appealed against it.
"We, therefore, deem it appropriate to modify the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6855 of 2025, and restore the legal position to status quo ante. The rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed in terms of the judgment dated 08.11.2023 of the High Court, and as per the directions which are being issued issued in the present order," Court ordered
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankarnararayan, Shyam Divan, Nikhil Goel, Suhail Dutt, Amit Anand Tiwari and advocates Prabhat Chaurasia, Nitish Raj, Mahek Maheshwari, Smuriti Gangadhar, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Anirudh Jamwal, Kenisha Savla, MPS Legal, Tanvi Dubey, Malak Bhatt, Yash Dubey, Rongon Choudhury, Shaurya Rai, Mekala Ganesh Kumar Reddy, Vansh Chauhan, Riddhi Jain, Akash Vashishtha, Shubham Upadhyay, Anukriti Bajpai, Azhar Alam, B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Ashutosh Jha, Aparajita Jamwal, Saushiraya Havelia, Oleander D Singh, Tanvi Anand, Pranjal Mishra, Shivam Tomar, Devyani Gupta, Avadh Bihar Kaushik, Vishnu Dutt Sharma appeared for petitioners.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, Senior Additional Advocate General Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Senior Advocates Navin Pahwa and Vibha Datta Makhija and advocates Ruchira Goel, Indira Bhakar, Veera Mahuli, Sharanya Sinha, A P Singh, V P Singh, Richa Singh, Nihal Shekhawat, Geeta Chauhan, Pratima Rani, Ashish Singh, Sachin Agarwal, Pranav Kumar Srivastva, Sadashiv, Shilpi Chowdhary, Narendra Kumar Goswami, Amarkant Patel, A Radhakrishnan, Shiv Kumar, Vaishnavi and Sujeet Rajan appeared for respondents.
[Read Order]