Facing sharp criticism from the Supreme Court over its handling of the Banke Bihari Temple development plan, the Uttar Pradesh government on Tuesday defended its recent ordinance, asserting that the move was aimed solely at improving the administration of the historic shrine in Vrindavan, Mathura.
Appearing before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj clarified that the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 was not connected to any pending litigation regarding temple ownership. Instead, it stemmed from a public interest litigation before the Allahabad High Court seeking more effective temple management.
“Let me clarify at the outset that the ordinance has nothing to do with the pending writ petition. There was a PIL filed for better administration of the temple before the High Court and directions were passed,” said Nataraj, adding that the temple sees a weekly footfall of 2–3 lakh devotees.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the arguments should be placed before the High Court, especially in light of pending challenges to the ordinance’s validity. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the temple’s existing management committee, sought time until August 8 to submit an alternative proposal for managing the shrine.
The matter traces back to the Supreme Court’s May 15 order, which had granted the UP government permission to develop a corridor around the temple, allowing the use of temple funds to purchase nearby land for a holding area to manage crowd flow. The court had specified that any such land must be registered in the name of the temple deity or trust.
However, on August 4, the apex court put this approval “in abeyance”, pulling up the state for acting in a “clandestine manner” and questioning the urgency behind the ordinance.
The bench also indicated that it may appoint an interim management committee led by a retired High Court or district judge to oversee the temple’s administration. It emphasized that the court was not presently ruling on the ordinance’s constitutionality, leaving that issue for the High Court to decide.
The petition challenging the ordinance, filed through advocate Tanvi Dubey, argues that the new law effectively allows the state to take over the management of the ancient and revered temple, sidelining its traditional caretakers.
The case will be heard next on August 8, when the petitioners are expected to present their suggestions regarding the future administration of the temple.
