The Supreme Court has voiced its dissatisfaction with the Allahabad High Court's handling of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the historic Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan. The top court was particularly critical of the "intemperate language" used by the High Court against the Uttar Pradesh government.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi reviewed the orders dated July 21 and August 6, which were passed by a single-judge bench of the High Court. The PIL had challenged the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. The Supreme Court has now stayed the observations made in these orders.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, highlighted that the High Court had been conducting "parallel proceedings" on the matter and had made what he termed as "unwarranted observations."
The Supreme Court bench expressed its dismay at the High Court's language. “What kind of intemperate language is being used by the high court? Like the state committed a sin by passing an ordinance. What is all this? Was the high court not informed that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter?” the bench questioned.
Also read: SC refuses to gag media in Dharmasthala burial case
Justice Kant also pointed out a procedural issue, noting that petitions challenging the constitutional validity of a statute are typically heard by a division bench. In this case, however, a single-judge bench had passed the order.
The top court has now stayed the observations made in the July 21 order, which had appointed an amicus curiae, as well as the August 6 order, which contained critical remarks against the state government.
On August 6, the High Court had sharply criticised the state government's move to introduce the ordinance, which proposed the creation of a statutory trust to manage the temple. The High Court had made strong observations, stating that the government had committed a 'sin' and urging it to "leave the temple alone".
This development underscores a significant legal and procedural clash between the two judicial bodies regarding the administration of a major religious site.
Follow us
