Temple Funds For Welfare Of Pilgrims, Can't Be Pocketed By Private Persons: Supreme Court

Today, the Supreme Court while hearing the plea filed by the Management Committee of Thakur Bankey Bihari Ji Temple against the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, remarked that the Temple funds should be utilised only for the welfare of the pilgrims and it cannot be pocketed by private persons in the name of the temple being a private Temple.

The Supreme Court also questioned the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the haste in passing the Ordinance for taking over the management of the Bankey Bihari Temple located at Vrindavan.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, "The Temple funds will be definitely utilised only and only for the purpose of the welfare... of the pilgrims and it cannot be pocketed by private persons in the name of private Temple..."

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the former management of the Bankey Bihari Temple, urged that the connected matter be heard first.

Justice Kant questioned the parties as to why they cannot go to the High Court with the issue.

Upon which, Divan referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated May 15, 2025, in which the Supreme Court permitted the State of Uttar Pradesh to utilise the temple fund in order to purchase the land around the Temple as per the Scheme proposed, provided that the land so acquired shall be in the name of the Deity/Trust.

Divan sought to recall certain paras of the said judgment as the directions were sought from the Supreme Court without notice to the management of the Bankey Bihari Temple and the State went "behind the back" of the management and took directions from the Supreme Court.

Justice Kant confirmed that the matter was limited to the Bankey Bihari Temple and whether there was any interim injunction order in respect of the Bankey Bihari Temple.

Divan continued to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court and submitted that it gives prompt to the Ordinance.

Divan, while referring to the said judgment, highlighted the manner in which the State took directions from the Supreme Court to utilize the funds of the Temple, when the management of the Temple was not even the party, by emphasising that the State aims to develop, preserve and maintain the Braj Heritage in the District of Mathura.

However, Justice Kant said, "Intention of the State doesn't appear to siphon the funds of the Temple..."

Upon which, Divan apprised the Court that the Temple is a private temple. However, Justice Kant remarked, "About a religious place to be said to be private is I think a misnomer...management can be private."

Later, Divan submitted that the Allahabad High Court earlier ordered that the Temple funds shall remain "untouched" and the same was never challenged by the State. However, in another suit between private parties, the State sought modification of the said decision of the High Court.

Divan further sought a status quo and submitted, "I need a status quo today...they suddenly pass an Ordinance. An ordinance is for emergency measures generally in our constitutional regime."

ASG KM Nataraj submitted that the Temple is a Public Temple and there is no management committee of the Temple at all, since many committees claim the same.

Upon which, Justice Kant expressed concern about identifying someone who can protect the legitimate interest of the Temple and suggested that a public notice be issued.

"Somebody has to be heard on behalf of the Temple...the Deity, to hear their viewpoint", said Justice Kant as Nataraj continued to urge that there is no managing committee of the Temple.

Divan submitted that all the Goswamis, who perform Sevas of the deity, are united with regard to the matter in question.

Justice Kant questioned regarding the representation of temple and said, "We are not, as of now, not in the question of utilisation of fund, the Temple funds will be definitely utilised only for the purpose of the welfare... of the pilgrims and it cannot be pocketed by private persons in the name of private Temple..."

Furthermore, the Court also criticised the manner in which the State approached the Supreme Court in a civil dispute for the utilisation of the funds of the Temple.

Justice Kant orally suggested that an interim management committee be formed, headed by a retired High Court Judge, to run the day to day affairs of the Temple and that the other rituals can be continued by the family as before.

Justice Kant said, "In general principles, providing basic amenities is the state's responsibility...one of the best example is the area around Golden Temple...that kind of initiative can be taken sometimes." The Court highlighted the scope of Religious Tourism to generate employment and revenue.

Thereafter, Justice Kant suggested that the constitutionality of the Ordinance should be pressed first before the High Court.

The Court will continue to hear the matter on August 5, 2025, as the ASG sought adjournment to seek further instructions from the Government.

Cause Title: Management Committee Of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple And Anr. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 704/2025 X)

Click here to read/download Order