Persons From Vaishnav Sampradayas Must Be Appointed As Receivers Of Mathura Temples: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasised that the persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas must be appointed as the Receivers of Mathura temples.

The Court emphasised thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by one Ishwar Chanda Sharma, challenging the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a Contempt Application.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “It is an established fact that the historical temples are old structures; they require proper upkeep and other logistic support, and added to the fact is that in a large number of temples, Receivers have been appointed for decades now which was originally intended to be a stop-gap temporary measure. It is unfortunate that while appointing Receivers, the concerned Courts are not keeping in mind that Mathura and Vrindavan, the two most sacred places for Vaishnav Sampradayas and, therefore, persons from Vaishnav Sampradayas should be appointed as Receivers. This will give true meaning to the High Court’s directions pertaining to persons who are having adequate administrative experience, historical, religious, social background and not Advocates to be appointed as Receivers.”

The Bench noted that in Vrindavan and Mathura, there are large numbers of temples of Vaishnav Sampradayas, including the Banke Bihari Ji temple, Shree Krishna Janam Bhoomi, Prem Mandir, Radha Raman temple, Govindji temple and the list is long and all the temples are of great significance.

AOR Abhikalp Pratap Singh appeared for the Appellant while Senior Advocates Navin Pahwa, Vibha Datta Makhija, and AOR Kumar Mihir appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti, Bara Bazar, Govardhan, Mathura, is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, and was constituted to manage the affairs of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura in 1957. The committee elections held in the year 1999 put a hiatus to the peaceful functioning of the administration of the temple, as it resulted in a dispute regarding the validity of two alleged elections. Consequently, Shri Govind Prasad Purohit (Plaintiff) filed an Original Suit, seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendant/Respondent No. 5/Dilip Kumar Sharma from causing any hinderance in all types of management and operations of the Giriraj Temple. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant filed two separate Election Petitions, which were referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The said authority held the election to be valid by which the Defendant was declared to be the Manager.

Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on the ground of being infructuous. Consequently, the Plaintiff passed away in 2006 and his son Jitendra Prasad Purohit moved an Application seeking to be impleaded in the suit. The Trial Court appointed Advocate Nand Kishore Upadhyay as Receiver of the temple who was also representing the Plaintiff in the Civil Suit. The Defendant filed a Writ Petition against this Order, and the High Court set aside the same. The matter was remanded back to the Trial Court, which appointed a seven-member committee including 3 lawyers. The Respondent made an Application expressing his desire to be appointed but the same was denied. Pertinently, the Appellant was appointed as a member of the said committee. Subsequently, a Contempt Petition was filed for prosecuting the Civil Judge and the High Court set aside the Trial Court’s Order. Hence, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “Mathura is a place where Lord Krishna (an Avatar of Lord Vishnu) is said to have been born over 5000 years ago in a prison cell because his parents were held captive by King Kansa. Vrindavan, which is a few kilometres away from Mathura, is a pilgrimage destination of immense and spiritual significance. Lord Krishna spent his early years in Vrindavan and where he performed the Raas Leela with Gopis, lifted the Govardhan Parbat and his flute was heard by everyone in Vrindavan. Bhagwat Puran and Mahabharata describes Lord Krishna's divine acts and teachings.”

The Court remarked that Mathura and Vrindavan, being historical cities, have found their descriptions in most of the religious scriptures and are visited by millions of people every year and there is a great rush of pilgrims to visit the historical temples and to seek blessings of Lord Krishna and other deities.

“Mathura and Vrindavan both, keeping in view of the influx of devotees, need wider roads, parking spaces, Dharamshalas, hospitals and other public amenities. The Trust formed by the State of Uttar Pradesh/Respondent No. 4 is already doing a great job for the development of Mathura and Vrindavan corridor, and the Act enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature, i.e. The Uttar Pradesh Braj Planning and Development Board Act, 2015, provides for development of both the cities keeping in view their historic importance”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the development of Mathura and Vrindavan cannot be done by parties individually, let it be the various trusts, which are managing the temples, or even by the Government.

“It has to be a collective effort by the Government, Trusts, people of Mathura and Vrindavan and other agencies in order to achieve a peaceful and spiritual journey for all pilgrims visiting these holy sites. The Yamuna river which is considered a Goddess in Hinduism and revered as sister of Yama, the God of death, also requires attention as Yamuna Ji is believed to be purifying and a dip in its water is said to cleanse one’s sins”, it further noted.

The Court observed that the Kashi Ghat and Vishram Ghat requires to be expanded and renovated and similarly, the lake of flowers i.e. Kusum Sarovar which is located near Govardhan Parbat also requires beautification.

“In short, there is a great work which has to be done to ensure that the pilgrims going to Mathura and Vrindavan are able to seek blessings of Lord Krishna and other Gods and Goddesses without any discomfort. … It is suffice to say that the buck does not stop at the issue raised in the present SLP relating to the eligibility of a receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura”, it also said.

The Court remarked that the fact that the Civil Suit has been pending for over 25 years, with only receiver’s running the show, goes to show that the issue of maladministration runs deep and wide.

“During the hearings, we have been apprised by Intervenor/Respondent No. 4 that other temples in the belt, including the Shri Banke Bihari Temple, have been facing severe administrative issues of crowd management and it is being administered by a civil judge. … It pains this Court to take notice of the fact that the temple was a site of an unfortunate stampede in 2022, caused due to the lack of infrastructure that can support the large crowd of devotees that visit the temple brimming with bhakti to offer their prayers”, it added.

Court’s Directions

Furthermore, the Court said that as it is in sesin of the cause qua the administration and safety of temples in the Braj region, it is in public interest to decide the issue raised by the State of Uttar Pradesh expeditiously in the Supreme Court itself.

“As observed by the High Court vide order dated 08.11.2023, the acquisition of land around the temple and the consequent development project is crucial to ensure the safety of the pilgrims. … The State of Uttar Pradesh has undertaken to incur costs of more than Rs.500 Crores to develop the corridor. However, they propose to utilise the Temple funds for purchasing the land in question; which was denied by the High Court vide order dated 08.11.2023. We permit the State of Uttar Pradesh to implement the Scheme in its entirety”, it ordered.

The Court permitted the State Government to utilize the amount lying in the fixed deposit to acquire the land proposed. However, it clarified that the land acquired for the purposes of development of the temple and corridor shall be in the name of the Deity/Trust.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal, modified the High Court’s Order, and directed the Civil Judge to comply with the impugned Order and appoint a Receiver having relevant adequate administrative experience, historical, religious and social background preferably belonging to the Vaishnav Sampradaya.

Cause Title- Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 700)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Abhikalp Pratap Singh and Advocate Kartikey.

Respondents: Senior Advocates Navin Pahwa, Vibha Makija, AORs Kumar Mihir, Pushkar Anand, A. Radhakrishnan, Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya, Ruchira Goel, Advocates Prachi Nirwan, K.B. Upadhyay, Sankalp Goswami, and Shivansh B. Pandya.

Click here to read/download the Judgment