The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Uttarakhand High Court to hear and decide the plea of the sevayat (chief priest) of Maa Chandi Devi Temple in Haridwar, challenging the appointment of a receiver to oversee the shrine’s management.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti also asked the District Magistrate (DM) of Haridwar to submit a report on whether there had been any mismanagement in the administration of the centuries-old temple. The matter has been deferred by six weeks.
The plea was filed by Mahant Bhawani Nandan Giri, represented by advocate Ashwani Dubey, who argued that the Uttarakhand High Court, without any complaint or evidence, delegated the control of the temple to the Badri Kedar Temple Committee.
According to the petitioner, the high court’s order came despite the existence of a panel constituted in 2012 — comprising the DM and the Senior Superintendent of Police of Haridwar — to supervise the temple’s affairs. The petitioner further claimed that the order was arbitrary and violative of natural justice since he, as sevayat and chief trustee, was not heard.
The Maa Chandi Devi Temple, founded in the 8th century by Adi Shankaracharya, has historically been managed by the petitioner’s family as hereditary sevayats.
The Uttarakhand High Court had ordered the appointment of a receiver while hearing an anticipatory bail plea of one Reena Bisht, who claimed to be the live-in partner of temple head priest Rohit Giri.
The case arose after Giri’s wife, Geetanjali, lodged an FIR in May alleging Bisht attempted to run over her son with a vehicle. On the same day, Rohit Giri was arrested in Punjab in a separate molestation case and remains in judicial custody.
While hearing Bisht’s bail plea, the high court observed that Giri was living with her despite his pending divorce and that she had recently given birth to his child. Expressing concern, the bench remarked:
“Trustees of the temple are creating a noxious atmosphere … and there is complete mismanagement in the trust. It cannot be ruled out that there may be misappropriation of donations.”
The petitioner contended that the high court exceeded its jurisdiction by passing directions outside the scope of the bail proceedings and without issuing notice to him. He stressed that no complaint of mismanagement or misappropriation had ever been raised by the official committee comprising the DM and the SSP.
The Supreme Court’s directive now places the onus on the Uttarakhand High Court to examine these contentions afresh in light of the DM’s report.
