Supreme Court Stays Allahabad High Court Remarks in Banke Bihari Temple PIL, Flags Use of ‘Intemperate Language’
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Subject: Challenge to remarks and proceedings in a Public Interest Litigation concerning the historic Banke Bihari Temple, Vrindavan
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court of India on Friday, August 8, 2025, expressed strong disapproval of certain remarks made by the Allahabad High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) relating to the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. The ordinance, introduced by the Uttar Pradesh government, proposes the formation of a statutory trust to oversee the administration and management of the historic and culturally significant Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan.
The controversy arose after a single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court passed orders on July 21 and August 6 while hearing a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of the ordinance. The orders contained strong language criticising the state government’s move, including an observation that the state had committed a “sin” by bringing the ordinance.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, after perusing both orders, stayed the “adverse and unwarranted” remarks. The Court questioned why such “intemperate language” had been used against the state government in judicial orders, especially when the matter was already before the Supreme Court.
Justice Surya Kant directly addressed the tone of the High Court’s remarks: What kind of intemperate language is being used by the High Court? Like the state sinned by passing an ordinance. What is all this? Was the high court not informed that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter?”
The Court also noted a procedural irregularity — constitutional challenges to legislation or ordinances are generally listed before a Division Bench of the High Court. However, in this case, the matter was handled and decided by a Single-Judge Bench, raising questions about the procedural propriety of the proceedings.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, submitted that the High Court was effectively running “parallel proceedings” on an issue already pending before the Supreme Court. He further argued that the orders contained “unwarranted observations” which went beyond the judicial scope of the PIL and were prejudicial to the state government.
Supreme Court’s Directions
After hearing submissions, the Supreme Court issued the following directives:
- Stay on Observations: All remarks made against the Uttar Pradesh government in the High Court’s orders dated July 21, 2025, and August 6, 202,5, were stayed with immediate effect.
- Stay on Proceedings: The Supreme Court ordered that no further proceedings in the PIL before the Allahabad High Court should take place until further orders.
- Roster Reconsideration: The Court requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to consider placing all petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the ordinance before a Division Bench for hearing, by established judicial practice.
Context of the High Court’s Remarks
On August 6, the single-judge bench of the High Court had sharply criticised the state’s ordinance, describing it as an attempt to “take over” the temple’s administration and urging the government to “leave the temple alone.” The bench had used the term “sin” about the ordinance, language which the Supreme Court found inappropriate in a judicial context.
The Banke Bihari Temple is not only a site of immense religious significance but also a heritage landmark, drawing millions of devotees annually. The state government has maintained that its ordinance seeks to ensure better management and infrastructure for the temple, while opponents argue that it amounts to excessive state interference in religious affairs.
Significance of the Supreme Court’s Intervention
The Supreme Court’s order underscores two critical principles:
- Judicial Restraint in Language: Courts, while free to criticise governmental action, must do so within the bounds of judicial decorum.
- Procedural Discipline in Constitutional Challenges: Matters involving the constitutional validity of a statute or ordinance should be heard by an appropriate bench as per judicial norms, ensuring fairness and consistency in adjudication.
#SupremeCourt #AllahabadHighCourt #BankeBihariTemple #Vrindavan #JudicialRestraint #MasterOfRoster #UttarPradesh #TempleAdministration #ConstitutionalLaw #OrdinanceChallenge #RuleOfLaw #IndiaLawUpdate
