By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has raised serious constitutional and legal questions regarding the Uttar Pradesh government’s move to assert control over the Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple in Vrindavan, a historically revered private Hindu temple, through the recently promulgated Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, while hearing a petition filed by Pranav Goswami and another, issued a notice to the state government and sought a detailed reply on whether it was constitutionally permissible for the state to appoint government officials as trustees of a temple traditionally run by hereditary servitors — the spiritual descendants of the saint-poet Swami Haridas Ji, the founder of the Banke Bihari worship tradition.
Concerns Over State Encroachment on Religious Autonomy
The court proceedings were significantly guided by Amicus Curiae Sanjeev Goswami, who contended that the ordinance represents an unconstitutional intrusion by the government into the affairs of a religious institution that is private in nature.
He emphasized that the Banke Bihari Ji Temple has always been managed and maintained by a hereditary priesthood that has faithfully continued the religious traditions and “sewa bhav” (devotional service) of the temple for centuries.
Goswami further pointed out that while the ordinance proposes a bifurcation of trustees into two categories — nominated trustees and ex-officio trustees — the real concern lies with the ex-officio members. According to the ordinance, seven high-ranking state government officials, including the District Magistrate of Mathura, Senior Superintendent of Police, and Municipal Commissioner, among others, are to serve as ex-officio trustees.
“This essentially amounts to a backdoor attempt by the state to take over temple administration, which directly violates the secular fabric of the Indian Constitution,” argued Goswami.
He added that while nominated trustees would include saints, mahants, scholars, and spiritual leaders from the Vaishnav tradition — ostensibly giving a religious color to the trust — the ex-officio government trustees tilt the balance towards executive control, which may compromise the religious and spiritual independence of the temple.
Constitutional Challenge Under Secularism Principles
The amicus curiae argued that the state, being secular under the Constitution of India, cannot directly intervene in religious institutions unless there is a compelling reason involving gross mismanagement, public order, or proven criminal misconduct.
The current ordinance, he said, does not meet such thresholds, and therefore appears to be an unjustified violation of Article 26 of the Constitution, which protects the right of religious denominations to manage their affairs in matters of religion.
“By creating such a trust structure, the state is seeking to exert undue influence and infringe upon the religious autonomy of the temple. It is tantamount to the state practising religion, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits,” he told the court.
Court’s Observation and Next Steps
Taking note of these serious constitutional objections, Justice Agarwal remarked that the matter requires deeper judicial scrutiny, and set July 30, 2025, as the next date of hearing. The court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file its response and address the constitutional and legal concerns raised by the amicus curiae.
“Put up this case as fresh on July 30, 2025. By that time, the State Government would respond to the argument which has been raised by the Amicus Curiae,” the court noted in its July 21 order.