‘Lord Krishna was first mediator’: Supreme Court seeks mediation in Banke Bihari Temple case

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi orally proposed to withdraw a May 15 judgement in which the Supreme Court allowed the UP government to use temple funds

The Supreme Court on Monday talked about spirit of Lord Krishna, the 'first mediator', in a dispute between the Shri Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan and the Uttar Pradesh government ordinance about the proposed redevelopment of a corridor using Rs 500 crore from temple funds.

"Lord Krishna was the first mediator", the apex court said seeking mediation in the case. It proposed to constitute a committee headed by a retired High Court judge to oversee the management of the temple while the validity of the Ordinance is decided by the High Court.

Built in 1864, the Banke Bihari temple is one of the most visited pilgrimage sites in northern India and is managed by Shebaits, a hereditary priesthood that oversees daily rituals and temple administration.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has also orally proposed to withdraw the May 15 judgement in which the Supreme Court allowed the UP government to use temple funds.

According to LiveLaw, the SC questioned the "tearing hurry" in which the state government promulgated the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, for taking over the management of the temple.

It expressed disapproval of the "clandestine manner" in which the state government secured permission from the Supreme Court through the May 15 judgment for the use of temple funds for the corridor development project, by filing an application in a civil dispute, the report said.

The bench adjourned the hearing of the petitions challenging the Ordinance till tomorrow to enable Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj to get instructions from the government on the proposals made by the bench.

It orally said that it will relegate the parties to the High Court to challenge the Ordinance and meanwhile, the temple management will be under the committee headed by a retired judge.

The temple rituals will be continued by the family (the Goswamis) as before, the Supreme Court said.

It said that the Collector and other authorities will also be a part of the committee and the ASI can also be associated with the committee for a holistic development of the region.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the former management of the Banke Bihari Temple, submitted that the Ordinance ejected the Goswamis, who were earlier managing the temple.

He told the court that the Ordinance vested the management with a trust under the control of the government.

Contesting the May 15 judgment of the Supreme Court, which allowed the government to use the temple funds for the corridor development project, Divan said that the directions were passed "behind the back of the management", as they were not heard.

He further told the court that the Supreme Court's judgment came in a case that dealt with a private dispute between two sects.

He said that the state intervened in the private dispute and secured the orders for the utilisation of the temple funds, LiveLaw reported.

Divan pressed for a "status quo" order, questioning the need for the State to urgently promulgate an Ordinance, saying, "I need a status quo today. 100s of years this has been going on...and suddenly the state passes Ordinance...Ordinance is for emergency measures".

According to the report, Justice Kant at this stage asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, for the State, how the May 15 judgment could be justified when the affected parties were not heard.

ASG Nataraj reportedly said that it was a public temple and the persons who have approached the Court are not recognised as part of the management committee.

However, Justice Kant however disapproval of the manner in which the directions were passed without notice to the affected parties.

"The matter before this Court did not pertain to Banke Bihari temple. A public notice could have been issued...was there any Court-appointed receiver? It was not a case of No Man's Land. Someone had to be heard on the behalf of the temple," Justice Kant has been quoted as saying.

He observed if civil judge was monitoring, civil judge could have been issued notice.

"Some public notice should have been issued by this Court...that on account of the pending dispute between the warring groups...this is what we are proposing...temple funds will have to be utilized for pilgrims, can't be pocketed by private persons," he has been quoted.

Justice Kant said that the UP government filed an application in a "clandestine manner, not allowing the other party to be heard", which was unacceptable, asking why the state did not acquire the land as per law after paying compensation.

"What was the tearing hurry for the Ordinance?" Justice Kant reportedly asked the state.