The Allahabad High Court is examining a serious challenge to the constitutional validity of ‘The Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025’. In an order dated July 21, 2025, the court took note of arguments that the state government lacks the competence to take control of a private temple through such an ordinance. Finding that the matter requires consideration, the court has directed the state government to respond to the objections and has scheduled the next hearing for July 30, 2025.
The court is hearing the case of Pranav Goswami And Another v. Civil Judge Junior Division Mathura, where the ordinance, which seeks to create a government-controlled trust for the temple, is under challenge.
During the hearing on July 21, 2025, before Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, the court-appointed Amicus Curiae, Sri Sanjay Goswami, presented arguments challenging the very foundation of the state’s legislative action.
Background and Arguments of the Amicus Curiae
The core of the challenge revolves around the nature of the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple in Mathura. Sri Goswami contended that the temple is a private institution where religious practices have been continuously managed by the heirs of the late Swami Hari Das Ji.
The Amicus Curiae argued that the ordinance represents an attempt by the state government to “take control over the temple through back doors.” He specifically targeted Section 5 of the ordinance, which outlines the constitution of the Board of Trustees. While the board includes nominated trustees from the Vaishnav tradition, Sri Goswami raised “strong objections” to the inclusion of seven ex-officio trustees.
These ex-officio members, as per Section 5(1)(ii), include the District Magistrate of Mathura, the Senior Superintendent of Police of Mathura, the Municipal Commissioner of Mathura, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Uttar Pradesh Braj Teerth Vikash Parishad, among other government officials.
According to the Amicus Curiae, the appointment of these government functionaries constitutes “a back door entry by the State Government in the private temple managed by the Goswamis.” He described the move as an “encroachment on the rights of the Hindus by the State Government.”
He further argued that the state’s role should be limited to managing crowds and administration “from outside the Temple,” not intruding into its internal religious affairs.
Citing constitutional principles, Sri Goswami submitted that “the Constitution does not provide for the State to practice any religion and take control of any temple.” He expressed concern that the ordinance was a precedent-setting action, stating, “this is the first case, thereafter the Government would proceed to take control over the other temple within the State.” He also drew a parallel with the situation of temples in Tamil Nadu, which are under state control.
In his view, the Constitution “forbids such type of venture by the State Government encroaching upon the area of religion taking control of any religious property, or interfering in any religious practice.”
Court’s Order and Future Proceedings
After hearing the submissions, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal’s order noted that the Amicus Curiae had “raised a serious question as to the competence of the State Government for issuing the Ordinance.”
The court found that the issues raised were substantial, stating in its order, “Matter requires consideration.”
Before concluding, it was also submitted to the court that the matter is scheduled to be heard by the Hon’ble Apex Court on July 29, 2025.
The High Court has decided to continue the hearing and has directed the State Government to “respond to the argument which has been raised by the Amicus Curiae.” The case is listed to be heard again as fresh on July 30, 2025.
