The Supreme Court on Monday scheduled the hearing of review and interim petitions regarding the ownership of the Hare Krishna temple in Bengaluru for the week following October 5, setting the stage to revisit a prolonged legal battle between rival factions of the religious organization.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana set the timeline after senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Kartik Seth, appearing for ISKCON Bangalore, mentioned the matter. Counsel submitted that the review plea had previously been directed for listing before a bench on January 22 this year and requested that the matter be formally placed for consideration. In response, Chief Justice Kant confirmed that the review petition, alongside connected interim applications, will be taken up by a bench a week after October 5.
Split Verdict Prompts Fresh Bench Hearing
The constitution of a new bench follows a judicial impasse in November 2025, when a two-judge bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari (now retired) and A.G. Masih delivered a split verdict on a review petition brought by ISKCON Mumbai.
In that decision, Justice Maheshwari found that ISKCON Mumbai had established sufficient grounds for review, issuing an order to allow open-court hearings and issue notices to the concerned parties. In contrast, Justice Masih dismissed the review petitions, observing that a thorough examination of the record and the contested judgment revealed no apparent error or merits justifying reconsideration. Because of their differing conclusions, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for administrative directions.
Previous Supreme Court Ruling And Property Evidence
The pending review challenges a May 16, 2025 judgment by a bench of Justice Masih and Justice Abhay S. Oka (now retired), which had affirmed that the prominent temple and educational complex in Bengaluru belonged to ISKCON Bangalore.
In setting aside an earlier ruling by the Karnataka High Court, the May 2025 bench cited findings from the original trial court, noting that ISKCON Mumbai had failed to submit any evidence showing possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property and possessed no evidentiary basis to support its property claim.
Origins Of The Decades-Long Dispute
The litigation stems from conflicting claims between the two similarly named societies over control and administrative independence. ISKCON Bangalore, registered under Karnataka state law, asserts that it has operated independently and administered the Bengaluru complex for decades. Conversely, ISKCON Mumbai, registered under the federal Societies Registration Act of 1860 and the Bombay Public Trusts Act of 1950, argues that it holds lawful rights over the premises and that the Bengaluru unit functions merely as a branch.
The case previously moved through multiple tiers of the judiciary. In 2009, a local civil court in Bengaluru ruled in favor of ISKCON Bangalore, validating its legal title and issuing a permanent injunction against the Mumbai entity. That outcome was overturned on May 23, 2011, when the Karnataka High Court allowed a counterclaim from ISKCON Mumbai, conferring control of the shrine to the Mumbai society.
On June 2, 2011, ISKCON Bangalore challenged the High Court’s reversal in the Supreme Court through its office-bearer Kodandarama Dasa, initiating the apex court proceedings that remain active before the incoming bench.
