The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Uttarakhand government on a plea filed by Mahant Bhawani Nandan Giri, a “Sevayat” (priest-manager) of the historic Maa Chandi Devi Temple in Haridwar, challenging an order that directed the Badri Kedar Temple Committee to appoint a receiver to oversee the temple’s management.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti issued notice to the state government and directed it to file a reply within two weeks. The court also clarified that any decisions taken by the Badri Kedar Temple Committee in the interim will be subject to the outcome of the present petition.
The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Siddhartha Dave and advocate Ashwani Dubey, argued that the Uttarakhand High Court had passed the controversial directive during the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea, without issuing any notice to him and without any supporting evidence or formal complaint of mismanagement.
According to the plea, the temple — founded in the 8th century by Adi Shankaracharya — has historically been maintained by Giri’s family in the capacity of Sevayats. A monitoring committee comprising the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police of Haridwar had already been overseeing the temple’s functioning since a 2012 high court directive.
Giri contended that the high court acted “arbitrarily, illegally, and in violation of natural justice” by handing over control to the Badri Kedar Temple Committee without hearing the Sevayats or finding fault in the existing arrangement. The plea emphasized there was neither any complaint nor indication of misappropriation or mismanagement from the authorities previously monitoring the temple.
The high court passed the order in the backdrop of a criminal case involving Rohit Giri, the temple’s head priest. An FIR filed by Rohit’s wife, Geetanjali, alleged that Reena Bisht, claimed to be Rohit’s live-in partner, attempted to run over their son. Meanwhile, Rohit was arrested separately by Punjab Police in a molestation case and remains in judicial custody.
The high court, while hearing Bisht’s anticipatory bail plea, remarked that “trustees of the temple are creating a noxious atmosphere and there is complete mismanagement in the trust”, further expressing concern about potential misappropriation of temple donations.
Challenging these observations, the petitioner stated that such serious conclusions were drawn without formal inquiry, evidentiary support, or giving the temple trustees an opportunity to present their side.
