‘Better administration', says UP as Supreme Court questions haste behind Banke Bihari Temple ordinance
The Uttar Pradesh government defended its ordinance on the Banke Bihari Temple's management in the Supreme Court, asserting its aim is to improve administration for devotees. The court questioned the ordinance's urgency and lack of stakeholder consultation, suggesting the High Court address its legality. The Supreme Court is considering an interim committee to oversee temple management, focusing on devotee interests.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The Uttar Pradesh government on Tuesday defended its recent ordinance on the management of the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan , telling the Supreme Court that the move was aimed solely at improving the administration of the religious site, which draws lakhs of devotees every week.'The ordinance has nothing to do with the pending writ petition,' Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. 'There was a PIL filed for better administration of the temple before the high court and directions were passed.'The state's response came after the Supreme Court, on August 4, sharply criticised the manner in which the ordinance was brought, without hearing all stakeholders, and questioned the urgency shown by the government. The court had said it would keep in abeyance its earlier nod, granted on May 15, for the development of the temple corridor, pending a full hearing.During Tuesday's hearing, the state handed over its proposal for temple administration to the court. The bench noted that the plan appeared to be the same as the one it had suggested on August 4.While Nataraj clarified that the 2025 ordinance was not connected to ongoing litigation over temple ownership, the bench said those arguments would be more appropriately addressed if the challenge to the ordinance is taken up in the high court. 'Your arguments may be good, but can be made when the challenge to the ordinance is relegated to the high court,' the bench remarked.The ordinance has been challenged by the temple's existing management committee, which has questioned the legality of the state taking over the shrine's administration. The plea also seeks a recall of the May 15 order that permitted the state to move ahead with its development plan.That order had allowed the Uttar Pradesh government to use temple funds to buy five acres of land near the temple for creating a holding area. However, the top court had made it clear that the land must be acquired in the name of the deity or the trust, not the state.Senior advocate Kapil Sibal , appearing for the petitioners, requested time to present suggestions on the administration of the temple. The bench agreed and posted the matter for further hearing on August 8.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court reiterated that it was not currently ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance. 'Let the high court look into it,' the bench said, adding that it was considering appointing an interim committee, possibly led by a retired judge, to oversee the temple's management in the interest of devotees.The plea before the court, filed by advocate Tanvi Dubey on behalf of the temple's management committee, opposes the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, under which the state assumes control over the administration of one of Mathura's most iconic temples.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Maha govt will intervene to bring Mahadevi the elephant back to Kolhapur shrine: Fadnavis
Mumbai: Following a public outcry, Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis on Wednesday assured that his government will explore legal options to bring Mahadevi, a 36-year-old arthritic elephant, back to a Jain shrine in Kolhapur, days after she was relocated to Vantara, an animal rescue and rehabilitation centre run by the Reliance Foundation in Gujarat's Jamnagar, last month following a Supreme Court order. Maha govt will intervene to bring Mahadevi the elephant back to Kolhapur shrine: Fadnavis After holding a meeting over the matter on Tuesday, Fadnavis said, 'Considering the public sentiments, the state government will intervene in the legal process to bring back the Mahadevi elephant. The Jain shrine will submit a review petition in the Supreme Court, and the state government will help them by submitting an intervention application.' The chief minister also indicated that the state forest department can set up a centre with facilities similar to Vantara at the Kolhapur shrine to take care of the elephant. Mahadevi, also known as Madhuri, was with the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswamy Sanstha at Nandani in Kolhapur for over three decades before the Supreme Court last month upheld the Bombay high court's decision to relocate her to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust in Jamnagar, managed by Vantara, for better care and rehabilitation. This was after animal welfare organisations such as the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) approached the court, underlining the physically frail pachyderm's poor health and arguing that she was not getting proper care at the temple. The Supreme Court upheld the high court order on July 22, after which Mahadevi was given a tearful farewell from the temple and shifted to Vantara on July 28. Following Mahadevi's relocation, thousands of people in Kolhapur participated in protests demanding her return to the shrine. The protestors boycotted Reliance Group's Jio mobile service and marched for 45 km from the shrine to Kolhapur city on August 3, even as politicians from across the spectrum announced their support. In response, Vantara has said it did not request the elephant's relocation from the shrine but only served as the 'court-appointed recipient facility'. Against this backdrop, Fadnavis held a meeting on Tuesday, which was attended by all party leaders, including deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar, Congress MLC Satej Patil, former MP Raju Shetti, and representatives of the Nandani shrine. After the meeting, Shetti claimed that Pawar said during the meeting that he had received information about three to four other elephants being relocated from various parts and temples of Maharashtra to Vantara. Pawar has directed the forest department to collect information about elephants that have been relocated outside the state. Need a response from Vantara.
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC cites ‘worst order' as it takes HC judge off criminal matters
The Supreme Court has directed that an Allahabad High Court judge be stripped of all criminal jurisdiction until his retirement and made to sit with a seasoned senior judge to understand the nuances of law, after finding his recent ruling to be one of the 'worst and most erroneous' orders encountered by the top court. The unusual direction, issued by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, came in a criminal matter where the high court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a criminal case based on what the apex court termed as a purely civil dispute. 'We are constrained to observe that the impugned order is one of the worst and most erroneous orders that we have come across in our respective tenures as judges of this Court... The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court,' said the bench in its order on Monday, expressing grave dismay over the judge's conduct. It wondered whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. 'Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' stated the bench. The top court went on to direct the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court to immediately withdraw the present 'criminal determination' from the judge, and ensure he does not handle any criminal jurisdiction henceforth. 'We direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination,' the bench ordered. Justice Kumar will retire in May 2029. It also urged the high court chief justice to assign the judge to sit on a division bench with a senior judge to guide him. 'The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' stated the order. 'We have been constrained to issue directions…keeping in mind that the impugned order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time,' noted the court, indicating a pattern of concern regarding the judge's decisions. The court's directions, notably removing a sitting High Court judge from an entire category of judicial work, are rare and underscore the gravity with which the bench viewed the matter. The judgment came in an appeal against an order passed by Justice Kumar in May 2025, rejecting a plea to quash criminal proceedings in a complaint case. The dispute arose after Lalita Textiles, a small business, filed a criminal complaint against another firm, alleging non-payment of ₹7.23 lakh for supplied thread. Although a significant portion of the ₹52.34 lakh invoice had been paid, a balance remained unpaid. Lalita Textiles first attempted to register a first information report, but the police declined, stating it was a civil matter. The complainant then filed a criminal complaint, invoking Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), which led to issuance of summons by a magistrate. The other firm, M/s Shikhar Chemicals, sought quashing of the summons before the high court, arguing that the matter was a contractual dispute involving recovery of money, which was a civil issue at its core. However, Justice Kumar refused to quash the proceedings, reasoning that since the complainant was a small business and lacked the resources to fight a long-drawn civil case, it should be allowed to pursue the criminal case to recover his dues. 'To be more precise, it would seem like good money chasing bad money,' he observed in the impugned order. The apex court took deep exception to these observations. 'Is it the understanding of the High Court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount? The observations recorded are shocking,' the bench held. Citing the impugned order, the bench added: 'It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law.' The bench highlighted that even the magistrate had failed to understand the fundamental legal distinction between a sale transaction and entrustment of goods, and thereby misapplied Section 406 of IPC. 'We are not taken by surprise with the magistrate exhibiting complete ignorance of law as regards the position of law…However, we expected at least the High Court to understand the fine distinction between the two offences and the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust,' it said. The order added: 'The Judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time before it is decided and, therefore, the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount.' Calling it an 'extremely sad day' for the judiciary, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers to set aside the high court's order without even issuing notice to the other side. The case has now been remanded to the Allahabad High Court to be heard afresh by a different judge, as chosen by the Chief Justice.
India Today
11 minutes ago
- India Today
Top court examines screening process in corruption probes against public servants
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, during the crucial hearing on the constitutional validity of Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, examined whether the requirement of prior approval before initiating investigations against public servants strikes the right balance between protecting honest officers and ensuring provision, introduced through a 2018 amendment, requires prior sanction from the competent authority before any probe is launched into decisions taken by public servants while discharging official has been challenged by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), which argues that the clause enables selective shielding of corrupt officials and creates a conflict of interest. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan highlighted the need to safeguard honest bureaucrats, while also acknowledging the possibility of court asked petitioner's counsel, advocate Prashant Bhushan, 'Is your objection to the very concept of screening, or to the fact that the approving authority is the government itself?''If there is no screening, a FIR by itself can cause tremendous stigma. We also have to consider that there are good officers. Honest officers have to be protected also,' the bench Viswanathan noted that public servants sometimes act in the country's interest and later face scrutiny. He cited a book by Mr. Subramaniam, referring to a case where a bureaucrat purchased coal during a shortage and was later booked because it was alleged that it could have been procured at a lower price.'This is the kind of fear among honest bureaucrats,' the court noted. 'So there is some screening. If you think there's bias in screening, that's one thing. But questioning the very idea of screening is another.'The court added that the petitioner was viewing the issue only through the lens of corruption. 'What about decisions taken every day? You can't say all are tainted.'It also questioned whether the possibility of misuse alone was enough to strike down the provision. 'If the problem lies in implementation, that can be challenged. But is that enough to invalidate the law?'Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defending the provision, argued that Section 17A aims to ensure that honest officials are not discouraged by the fear of criminal proceedings.'80 to 90% of people in government are sincere and honest,' Mehta said. 'It's important to give them confidence that they won't be harassed unnecessarily.'He added, 'Fearless good governance is also part of rule of law.'Mehta stressed that every administrative decision is bound to upset someone and without screening, officials would live in constant fear of clarified that the provision only applies to acts done in official capacity, and not to cases where officials are caught red-handed. 'Such persons cannot claim protection under Section 17A,' he bench asked questions about how the screening process functions in reality. 'Is it true that blue-eyed boys and girls get away?' it asked, seeking clarity on who decides on approval under Section Mehta said it depends on the officer's cadre, the court asked if denials of approval can also be challenged. 'If permission is granted, aggrieved parties can challenge it. But what happens if it is denied?' the bench responded that denial too can be challenged, including by approaching courts for permission to file an Prashant Bhushan, appearing for CPIL, argued that the provision leads to serious conflicts of interest, especially in high-level cases of corruption.'Lower-level officers rarely act alone. Senior officials are often complicit. If they're also the ones granting sanction, that's a problem,' he proposed that instead of requiring sanction, courts should be allowed to strike down mala fide FIRs, and a mandatory preliminary inquiry should be the hearing concluded, the bench indicated that it would need to assess whether the provision maintains the right balance between anti-corruption efforts and protecting honest provision can't be seen from one prism,' the court said. 'Yes, it may shield dishonest officers. But it also safeguards honest ones.'The court added that if the intent of Parliament was to protect officials from baseless complaints, then the law must be seen as a protective measure. However, concerns about its misuse relate more to implementation than to the law itself.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
