SC questions UP govt on Bankey Bihari temple ordinance
The court proposed having an interim administrative committee headed by a former high court judge to manage the day-to-day affairs of the temple and propose steps for its holistic development aimed at promoting religious tourism and granted a day's time for the state and the temple management to respond with suggestions.
On May 26, the UP government brought an ordinance titled 'Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025' which allowed administrative takeover of the temple by a state-run trust that was given power to manage even the temple funds. The ordinance came after a May 15 judgment of the top court allowing the UP government to utilise temple funds to acquire 5 acres of land for a corridor development project around the premises.
The ordinance has since been challenged before the Allahabad high court. The top court on Monday heard a petition filed by the Management Committee Of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple challenging the ordinance and the May 15 judgment that was passed without hearing the Shebaits or the Bankey Bihari temple committee.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, 'What was the tearing hurry for bringing the ordinance? If the state wanted to carry out development, what stops you from getting the land as per law.'
The temple committee represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Tanvi Dubey pointed out that Bankey Bihari Mandir is a private temple and is being administered as per a 1939 court decree by the Sewayat Goswami community for over 500 years. Divan said that prior to the ordinance, the temple used to be managed by a committee having four members of the Goswami community and three non-Goswami individuals.
A public interest litigation for better management of the temple is pending before the Allahabad high court since 2022 and despite the temple committee being very much an active stakeholder, there was no public notice by the state about the bringing of an ordinance and no circumstance necessitated its promulgation.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appearing for the state said that the land on which the temple is situated is public land and the law does not recognise any management committee of the temple. By bringing the ordinance, he said the state aimed for the development of the temple and ensuring that funds are utilised for the betterment of pilgrims. He further pointed out that in the past there were incidents of stampede and to ensure there is more space for pilgrims, the state had benefited from the May 15 order to develop the corridor around the temple.
The bench said, 'Whether it is private land or not can be adjudicated by courts. You were required to issue a public notice as you were aware about the pending litigation by warring groups. But we are sorry to say, the state coming to court in a clandestine manner and not giving them an opportunity to be heard, we do not expect this from the state.'
The court said it was inclined to recall the May 15 order and suggest a retired high court judge or even a senior retired district court judge to head the interim management committee for running the day-to-day affairs of the temple. The court proposed that the committee may be allowed to utilise part of the temple funds for this purpose as it said, 'Temple funds should be utilised for the benefit of pilgrims coming to the temple and not to be pocketed by private persons.'
Divan said that the temple committee will not stand in the way of the court's order as what is proposed is an interim arrangement instead of the state trust under the ordinance which completely divests the Goswami community of the temple management and places it in the hands of state officials.
The court told the ASG that even without acquiring the land, the state is bound to provide basic amenities in religious places, pointing to the example put in place at the Golden Temple where the state persuaded people living near the religious place to shift out to ensure planned development of the area around the temple.
'While the ordinance can be tested by the high court, we can ask the interim management committee that we propose to appoint to work on the holistic development of these temples. Today, religious tourism has a lot of potential as it generates employment. We should encourage it,' the bench said. The court pointed out how facilities in other places of pilgrimage such as Shirdi in Maharashtra and Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh have developed due to the influx of religious tourists.
The court was informed that several temples in the area are heritage structures and need to be preserved with utmost care. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for another set of petitioners associated with nearby temples said that the Supreme Court's May 15 judgment needs to be recalled before a solution can be found to the administration of the temples.
The bench said that once the judge-headed committee is in place, the collector can be part of the committee along with associating the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and architects.
The ordinance brought by the state government creates a statutory trust having full authority to manage and administer all affairs of the temple and comprising 18 members, of which 7 are ex-officio government officers. The remaining trustees are appointed at the discretion of the state government with only two representatives of the Sewayat Goswami community to be appointed by the state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Suicide and the burden of social responsibility
The recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Sukdeb Saha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2025 INSC 893) transcends the confines of a mere legal dispute; it serves as an urgent call for introspection. While directly addressing the tragic death of 17-year-old girl who enrolled in a coaching student preparing for the NEET examination at Aakash Byju's Institute, Vishakhapatnam, the judgment is structured into two primary parts. Part A addresses the specific factual circumstances of X's death and the investigation, while Part B delves into the broader societal issue of student suicides and proposes interim guidelines observing with gravitas that the very "soul of education appears to have been distorted". The Court critiques the contemporary academic paradigm, especially the rigorous competitive examination systems, for fostering a "high-stakes race" where the "joy of learning" is supplanted by "anxiety over rankings", and "failure" is perceived "as a devastating end". The court further lamented that instead of fostering "dignity, confidence, and purpose," education has transformed into a 'pressure-laden path toward narrowly defined goals of achievement, status, and economic security," replacing the "joy of learning" with "anxiety over rankings, results, and relentless performance metrics". Vaccination (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The Court emphasised that mental health is an integral component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, reinforced by India's international human rights obligations. It alludes to philosophical insights from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Émile and Jiddu Krishnamurti's Education and the Significance of Life to underscore that true education should be holistic, nurturing reason, autonomy, emotional well-being, and integrated intelligence, rather than fostering fear, competition, or conformity. The current system, the Court argues, is a tragic deviation from these ideals. The disturbing statistics cited in the judgement from the NCRB Accidental Deaths and Suicides report, 2022 are a grim testament to this crisis: India recorded approximately 13,044 student suicides in 2022, with 2,248 attributed directly to examination failure. This number has more than doubled from 5,425 in 2001 to 13,044 in 2022. The Court reiterated the phrase "suicide epidemic" given in Amit Kumar & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 384) to describe this alarming rise, attributing a majority of these deaths to "unbearable pressure imposed upon students by institutional and societal expectations". Emile Durkheim, the French sociologist and pioneer in the study of suicide, argued that suicide is a social fact shaped by collective forces rather than individual pathology alone. In India, several key social factors contribute significantly to suicide trends, including the disintegration of families, weakening of social bonds, the isolation that often accompanies urbanisation, property disputes, medical illness, examination stress, and failure in romantic relationships. The Union Government had taken several preventive measures to address student suicides. In 2023, the ministry of education released the UMMEED Guidelines to sensitise schools and identify at-risk students and launched MANODARPAN under the Atma Nirbhar Bharat Yojna to provide mental health support through helplines, counselling, and digital resources. The National Suicide Prevention Strategy (2022), introduced by the ministry of health, adopted a multi-sectoral approach focused on youth. Responding to rising student suicides, especially in hubs like Kota and Hyderabad, the Supreme Court directed the formation of a National Task Force on Student Mental Health, chaired by Justice (retd) Ravindra Bhat, to identify root causes and recommend reforms. The Court, invoking Article 21, recognised mental health as integral to the right to life, dignity, and autonomy. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 further decriminalised suicide attempts, presuming severe stress and mandating State care and rehabilitation instead of punishment. India's obligations under international frameworks such as International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and WHO's Mental Health Action Plan reinforced its duty to protect mental health. However, despite these efforts, a unified and enforceable national framework for student suicide prevention remained absent making urgent, coordinated action imperative, especially in high-stress educational environments. Recognising a legislative and regulatory vacuum and the urgency of the crisis, the Court, drawing parallels with the Vishaka Guidelines, issued interim guidelines under Article 32 read with 141 of the Constitution to establish a preventive, remedial, and supportive framework for mental health protection and suicide prevention across all educational institutions. These guidelines include mandates directing all educational institutions in India including schools, colleges, universities, coaching centres, and hostels, regardless of affiliation, to adopt uniform mental health policies; appointment of qualified counsellors in establishments with over 100 students, optimal student-to-counsellor ratios and mentorship during academic transitions; prohibition of unethical academic practices like batch segregation and public shaming; prominent display of suicide helpline numbers; inclusive engagement with marginalised students; confidential grievance mechanisms for harassment and bullying with accountability for institutional inaction; regular parental sensitisation programmes; and a focus on holistic development through extracurricular activities and exam reforms to reduce academic pressure. Suicide is a mirror held up to society, reflecting the deepest anxieties and failures that a person faces. This advocates for a call to action for policymakers, so that through interventions, a deeper connection, compassion, and a sense of community can be formed trying to heal the social fabric and bring hope to those who feel most alone. It also calls for the promotion of teaching well-being and happiness through education, empathy, emotional literacy, and destigmatised dialogue. This article is authored by Jisu Ketan Pattanaik, assistant professor, sociology and Sumit Kumar Singh, research assistant, National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Maharashtra will file review petition to bring back elephant Madhuri from Vantara: Fadnavis
Responding to strong public sentiment in favour of the return of Madhuri, the female elephant belonging to a Math in the Kolhapur district, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said Tuesday the state government will file a review petition in the Supreme Court to bring her back from Vantara in Gujarat. Following widespread protests across Kolhapur against Madhuri's rehabilitation—also known as Mahadevi—to the Vantara facility from the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sansthan Mutt, CM Fadnavis convened a meeting with top ministers and stakeholders to discuss the issue. Vantara is a state-of-the-art animal rescue centre run by Reliance Industries and Reliance Foundation. The controversy arose in July when the Bombay High Court ordered the rehabilitation of the ailing elephant, which was housed in the Nandani Math in Shirol taluka, based on a petition by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The Supreme Court had also upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court subsequently. 'Considering the traditions of Nandani Math and the sentiments of the local people, efforts will be made to bring back Madhuri through a legal process. Madhuri has been in Nandani Math for the last 34 years, and there is a public sentiment that Madhuri should return to Nandani Math. Keeping this public sentiment in mind, the state government will file a review petition,' said Fadnavis. 'The Math should also include the state government in its petition. Also, a separate detailed position will be presented in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Forest Department,' he added. Fadnavis said once Madhuri is brought back, the government will set up a dedicated team, including a veterinarian, to care for her and provide any necessary support. 'If necessary, arrangements like a rescue centre will be made, and facilities will be provided accordingly. A request will also be made through the state government in this petition to appoint an independent committee by the Supreme Court to investigate the matters,' the chief minister said. Fadnavis said criminal charges against protesters would be withdrawn. Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar said the Forest Department should collect information about all the elephants taken out of Maharashtra. Congress MLC Satej Patil said his party stands with the local people on the issue, and believes that the female elephant, who is an integral part of the math, should be returned. Former Lok Sabha lawmaker Raju Shetti said a conspiracy was hatched to snatch the female elephant from the math. 'Several mutts in Maharashtra and Karnataka are getting notices to take away the elephants. This has to be stopped and probed,' said Shetti. On July 30, when the team from Vantara came to transport Madhuri, there was an outpour of grief by residents, who refused to allow the vehicle to move.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Corruption cases against govt officials: SC bats for striking balance
New Delhi, Aug 5 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday stressed on striking a balance to protect honest government servants discharging their official functions from frivolous complaints while ensuring corrupt officers were not shielded. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said if honest public servants were made vulnerable because of vexatious complaints, they would not function at all and this might lead to a 'policy paralysis". The apex court was hearing submissions on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act which mandates prior approval to start investigation against government officials in corruption cases. 'Ultimately, a balance has to be struck. Honest officers in the discharge of their duties must be protected from frivolous or vexatious complaints. Second, dishonest officers need not be protected," the bench said. The apex court observed one should not go with an approach that every officer was honest or every officer was dishonest. It said government officers took decisions or made recommendations in discharge of their official duty and one couldn't say every decision was 'tainted". The bench said a sword of police investigation couldn't be left hanging on the officers if he took a decision or made a recommendation in discharge of their official functions. 'What is wrong with this provision (Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act)? We want to know why are you attacking it," the bench asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was appearing for petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation. Bhushan said the provision mandating prior sanction for even investigation or inquiry would effectively cripple the probe of corruption offences. He said safeguards were already there for protection of honest government officers. Bhushan referred to previous apex court verdicts which stressed on the need to make probe agencies independent. 'It is the executive, which misuses. It is the political government which is usually corrupt," he said. The government could not only influence the decisions of public servants but could also influence the grant of sanction and whether some investigation should proceed and against whom, Bhushan added. 'The political executive is there for the purpose of ensuring a particular policy being implemented. They would have made electoral promises. They want those promises to be implemented. They would have had certain schemes. They would have had certain programmes for implementation," the bench said. Bhushan, however, said, 'We are today living in a situation in this country where unfortunately we are seeing gross miscarriage of justice across the board. We are seeing innocent people being arrested." He referred to cases probed by Enforcement Directorate against political leaders and claimed several such cases were dropped once the person being investigated joined the ruling party. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, objected to Bhushan's statement and said the issue before the court was concerning the Prevention of Corruption Act. 'We are not addressing seminar of any NGO," Mehta said. The bench then asked Bhushan to restrict his submissions to the cases of public servants. 'In all major decisions which government officers take, someone or the other will be dissatisfied," Mehta said. He said all aspects concerning Section 17A of the Act were discussed in Parliament. Mehta further said corruption couldn't be tolerated and there was a zero tolerance for it. Parliament while enacting Section 17A felt the need to insulate public servants from false and frivolous allegations, Mehta added. 'Fearless governance is also a equally important part of rule of law," he said. Bhushan said the prior approval virtually put a fetter on the entire investigation. The bench observed it might also be possible that the officer, against whom the complaint was made, was not at all involved in the process or had nothing to do with the decision taken or the recommendation made. top videos View all 'Every complaint can't be opening the floodgates. There must be filtering," the top court said while clarifying it wasn't shielding the corrupt. Bhushan said, 'If this section is allowed to remain in the statute book, I can guarantee that in almost no case of high level corruption, the permission will ever be granted by the government." The hearing would continue on August 6. PTI ABA ABA AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 05, 2025, 18:30 IST News agency-feeds Corruption cases against govt officials: SC bats for striking balance Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
