Supreme Court Questions UP Government’s Hasty Banke Bihari Temple Ordinance

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has recently raised pointed concerns regarding the Uttar Pradesh Government's hurried promulgation of the Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. The Ordinance aims to vest the management of the historically privately managed Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan within a new statutory trust comprising state officials as ex-officio trustees. The Court criticized the State’s “tearing hurry” and the “clandestine manner” in which permission was obtained to utilise temple funds for developing a corridor around the temple, signaling judicial vigilance against executive overreach in religious affairs. This article analyses the legal issues stemming from the Ordinance, the constitutional principles involved, and the implications for religious trust governance and administrative law.

Background

The Banke Bihari Temple, located in Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh, is a prominent shrine with religious and cultural significance, traditionally managed by a private trust comprising descendants and followers of Swami Haridas Ji. A long-standing dispute exists between competing sects of sewayats who oversee temple rituals and management.

In 2023, the Allahabad High Court permitted a corridor development project initiated by the UP Government but restrained the use of Rs 262.5 crore from temple funds, preventing disbursal of the corpus for this purpose.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court modified this order, permitting the State to use temple funds to acquire five acres of land for the corridor, subject to the land’s registration in the deity’s name. However, key stakeholders were reportedly not heard adequately.

Subsequently, on May 26, 2025, the UP Government promulgated the Shri Banke Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas Ordinance, 2025, establishing a statutory trust with 11 members—up to seven ex-officio, all government officials—to manage temple affairs and devotee facilities. This Ordinance effectively sought to wrest control away from the private management, a move challenged in petitions before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the lack of public consultation, the speed of promulgation while matters remain sub judice, and the manner of securing the earlier May 15 judgment permitting the use of temple funds1234.

Legal Analysis & Reasoning

Constitutional and Administrative Law Framework

The key legal challenges hinge on the constitutional guarantees to manage religious affairs autonomously under Article 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs). The judiciary traditionally safeguards the independent management of religious institutions against undue governmental interference, balanced against the state’s duty under Article 48 (Directive Principle of State Policy for preservation of cultural heritage).

The court’s scrutiny of promulgation speed tests administrative law principles of procedural fairness, natural justice, and reasoned decision-making. The “tearing hurry” observed violates norms requiring transparency, stakeholder participation, and avoidance of arbitrary executive action.

Temple funds, as held in precedent, are strictly meant for religious and charitable purposes, and their diversion without due process threatens public trust and violates fiduciary duties.

Critique of the Uttar Pradesh Government’s Action

• Premature Legislation: The State enacted the Ordinance when related litigation and petitions concerning management and fund usage were actively pending. The Court questioned the rationale for sidestepping ongoing judicial processes by enacting a statutory trust swiftly.

• Lack of Stakeholder Consent: Essential parties, including temple sewayats and devotee groups, were allegedly not consulted prior to Ordinance promulgation or in securing the May 15 judgment’s directions.

• Use of Temple Funds: The prior May 15 directions permitting use of funds to acquire land were secured “clandestinely” through civil suit proceedings without notifying key stakeholders or the court receiver, raising procedural and substantive impropriety.

• Governance Concerns: Placing control with primarily government officials alters the temple's autonomous nature, raising separation of powers and secularism concerns, and potential conflict with Article 26 protections.

Judicial Proposals and Interim Measures

The Supreme Court proposed:

• Recall of May 15 Judgment: The Court signaled intent to reconsider the order permitting fund utilization, emphasizing the “no man’s land” principle does not apply to the temple site.

• Constitution of a Supervisory Committee: Suggests appointment of a retired High Court judge-led committee to oversee interim management ensuring neutrality and protection of temple interests pending litigation outcome.

• Adjournment for Government Submissions: Directed Additional Solicitor General to seek instructions on implementation and interim management proposals.

Implications and Significance

Executive Overreach and Judicial Vigilance

This case illustrates the judiciary’s proactive role in checking executive excess, particularly where fundamental religious rights might be compromised. Promulgating legislation that shifts control over religious institutions without adequate process invites constitutional scrutiny.

Autonomy of Religious Institutions

The ruling reaffirms the constitutional protection of religious institutions' management, underscoring that legislative or executive actions must respect the distinct status of religious trusts under Articles 25 and 26.

Governance of Religious Trusts

The Court’s call for a committee-led interim administration signals a trend towards judicial oversight in complex trust disputes, prioritizing neutrality and stakeholder representation. This may set a precedent for similar disputes across India.

Procedural Fairness in Ordinance Promulgation

The judgment sharpens focus on the manner and speed of issuing ordinances, a powerful but exceptional legislative tool, reinforcing that such measures must not circumvent ongoing judicial processes or stakeholder rights.

Future Litigation and Policy Considerations

This development opens avenues for renewed High Court and Supreme Court adjudication on the Ordinance’s constitutionality. The ruling encourages legislative caution and consultation before altering religious management structures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s questioning of the Uttar Pradesh Government’s hasty promulgation of the Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding constitutional guarantees protecting religious autonomy and trust governance. Emphasizing procedural fairness, stakeholder hearing, and transparency, the Court has signaled that executive expediency cannot trump fundamental rights and trust institution sanctity. The proposed supervisory committee and the potential recall of prior fund-utilization orders reflect judicial prudence in balancing religious freedoms and state developmental interests. This case marks a critical juncture in administrative and constitutional law relating to religious trusts, with broad implications for governance of faith-based institutions in India.