Hindus' Rights Over Temples Versus Dignity Of Sacred Spaces: Why UP Government's Take Over Of Banke Bihari Mandir Was Needed

The last time I visited Shri Banke Bihari Mandir in Vrindavan, it was anything but peaceful. The narrow lanes were packed with people, all chanting “Banke Bihari Lal Ki Jai.” The air was filled with devotion, but also with chaos.

Suddenly, a huge crowd pushed forward. My mother, held my hand tightly, her fingers trembling. There was no space to move, no way to escape. I had to shield her with my body as the crowd surged like a wave. I was scared for her safety.

Tens of thousands of devotees had packed into the courtyard for darshan; there was no orderly line, no clear exits, and certainly no crowd-control measures worthy of a modern public venue. In that moment, I realised that one of India’s holiest shrines had become a public hazard.

The temple is tiny, only 1200 square feet, but lakhs of people visit every day. On normal days, 40,000 to 50,000 devotees come. On weekends or festivals like Janmashtami, that number can jump to 5 lakh. There are no proper exits, no clean paths, and no way to control the crowd.

In 2022, a stampede here killed and injured people. It was a wake-up call, but the problems didn’t go away. This chaos at Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir is not just my story. It is the story of thousands of devotees who visit every day.

Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas Adhiniyam 2025

On 26 May 2025, the Uttar Pradesh government took over the temple through a new ordinance called the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas Adhiniyam 2025.

The purpose of the trust is to ensure the continuity of worship, rituals, and procedures of the presiding deity and other deities in the temple, in accordance with the customs, traditions, festivals, fasts, and ceremonies that have been followed since the time of Swami Haridas, without any interference or alteration.

Its objective is to provide world-class comforts and facilities to pilgrims, devotees, and visitors. This law came after a big Supreme Court decision on 15 May 2025, which allowed the state to step in, buy land around the temple, and build better facilities for devotees. But the court also made sure the land stays in the name of the temple’s deity, not the government.

As part of the new legal framework under the ordinance, the Trust Board responsible for managing the temple will consist of both nominated and ex-officio trustees.

The nominated trustees will include distinguished individuals from Vaishnav traditions, other branches of Sanatan Dharma, as well as scholars, educators, entrepreneurs, and social workers associated with Hindu society.

Additionally, two representatives from the temple’s historical Goswami lineage, descendants of Swami Shri Haridas Ji, will also be included. One will represent the Raj Bhog Sevayats and the other the Shayan Bhog Sevayats. Their inclusion will be based on nominations received through an established process.

The ex-officio members of the board will include the District Magistrate, the Senior Superintendent of Police, the Municipal Commissioner of Mathura, the CEO of the Uttar Pradesh Braj Teerth Vikas Parishad, an officer from the Department of Religious Affairs, and the government-appointed CEO of the Shri Bankey Bihari Temple Trust.

The tenure of the nominated trustees is fixed at three years, with restrictions on consecutive and repeat appointments to ensure rotational representation and accountability.

This takeover is a big deal for many reasons. For Hindus, it makes us ask: Can we manage our own temples, or do we need the government to help keep devotees safe?

For the Constitution, it’s about finding a balance giving freedom to manage religious places (under Articles 25 and 26) while letting the state step in to protect people (under Article 25(2)).

And for our country, it’s part of a bigger question: How should a Hindu-majority nation protect its traditions while following the idea of being fair to all religions?

The Story Behind the Takeover: Facts and Court Battles

The intervention of the Uttar Pradesh government in the management of Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir, formalised through the ordinance, is a culmination of long-standing administrative and legal challenges faced by temples in the Braj region, particularly in Mathura and Vrindavan.

To fully grasp the context of this significant development, it is essential to examine the trajectories of two prominent temples: Sri Giriraj Temple in Govardhan, Mathura, and Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir in Vrindavan.

Both temples, deeply revered within the Vaishnav Sampradaya have encountered systemic issues of mismanagement, prolonged litigation, and infrastructural inadequacies.

Sri Giriraj Temple Dispute (1999-2025)

Sri Giriraj Temple, located in Govardhan, Mathura, occupies a sacrosanct position within the Vaishnav Sampradaya. The temple a focal point for pilgrims who undertake the parikrama of Govardhan hill, the hill lifted by Lord Krishna to shield the residents of Braj from the deluge unleashed by Indra, the deity of rain, as narrated in the Bhagavata Purana.

The administrative harmony of Sri Giriraj Temple was disrupted in 1999 when a contentious dispute emerged over the leadership of the Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti. Two rival factions asserted their legitimacy following competing elections held on 24 and 30 April 1999, to elect the committee’s office bearers.

Shri Govind Prasad Purohit, representing one faction, initiated legal proceedings by filing Original Suit No. 332 of 1999 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura, against Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma, the leader of the opposing faction.

Purohit sought a permanent injunction to restrain Sharma from interfering in the temple’s management, alleging that the 30 April election was invalid and that his faction’s election on 24 April rightfully established their authority to govern the Samiti.

Under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act 1860, disputes over elections in registered societies are resolved by the Prescribed Authority, an official tasked with adjudicating such matters.

On 11 February 2000, the Prescribed Authority reviewed the conflicting claims and upheld the election held on 24 April 1999, thereby recognising Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma as the legitimate Manager of the Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti.

Dissatisfied with this decision, Purohit appealed to the Allahabad High Court (HC) through Writ Petition (C) No. 9601 of 2000. However, in 2006, Govind Prasad Purohit passed away, and his son, Jitendra Prasad Purohit, was substituted as the plaintiff in the ongoing suit, continuing to assert his claim to the position of Manager.

With the dispute unresolved, the Trial Court sought to ensure the temple’s operations continued smoothly by appointing a Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This legal provision allows a court to appoint a Receiver to manage a property during litigation if it is deemed “just and convenient” to prevent mismanagement.

On 30 July 2021, the Trial Court appointed Shri Nand Kishore Upadhyay, an advocate, as the Receiver for Sri Giriraj Temple. However, this decision was flawed: Upadhyay was also the legal counsel for the Purohit family, raising concerns about his impartiality and potential conflict of interest.

Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma challenged this appointment in the Allahabad HC through Writ Petition No. 4468 of 2021. On 23 November 2021, the High Court ruled that appointing the plaintiff’s advocate as Receiver was improper, as it undermined the neutrality required for such a role.

The HC set aside the appointment and directed the Trial Court to select a new Receiver, emphasising the need for an impartial appointee. In response, the Trial Court, on 28 March 2023, appointed a Seven-Member Committee as Receiver, which included three advocates, one of whom was Ishwar Chanda Sharma, along with four other members.

This appointment, however, violated the procedural requirements of Order XL Rule 1, which mandates the appointment of a single Receiver to ensure cohesive and effective management.

The appointment of a committee rather than an individual Receiver sparked additional litigation. Devendra Kumar Sharma and another individual filed Contempt Application (C) No. 4429 of 2023 in the Allahabad HC, alleging that the Trial Court had failed to comply with the HC’s directive of 23 November 2021.

They argued that the appointment of a Seven-Member Committee, particularly one including advocates, contravened the HC’s order, which aimed to eliminate conflicts of interest and ensure the Receiver possessed religious and cultural expertise relevant to temple administration.

On 27 August 2024, the High Court upheld their contention, nullifying the Trial Court’s order. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court with clear instructions to appoint a Receiver in accordance with these stringent criteria.

Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir: Devotion in Crisis

Established in 1864, the temple traces its origins to Swami Haridas, a 16th-century saint who is believed to have discovered the idol of Banke Bihari. Vrindavan, known as the land where Krishna performed his childhood leelas, holds immense spiritual significance, as detailed in texts like the Bhagavata Purana.

The temple’s daily rituals, such as the mangla aarti and shringar, along with its vibrant celebrations during festivals like Janmashtami and Holi, draw millions of devotees annually.

While Sri Giriraj Temple was mired in litigation, a different kind of emergency was brewing at Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir. During the Janmashtami celebrations in 2022, a tragic stampede erupted at the temple, resulting in deaths and injuries among devotees.

In response to the stampede, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Allahabad High Court. The PIL highlighted the temple’s spatial constraints, inadequate pathways, and lack of crowd management systems, which collectively endangered devotees.

The petition urged the court to direct the Uttar Pradesh government to implement measures to widen access lanes, improve crowd control, and ensure devotee safety. The court recognised the urgent need for action.

The state government proposed a development scheme to acquire 5 acres of land to create a corridor around the temple. This expanded area would include essential facilities such as parking lots, restrooms, and security checkpoints to facilitate safer darshan.

The estimated cost for land acquisition is Rs 207 crore, with an additional Rs 507 crore allocated for infrastructural development. The state proposed using the temple’s corpus of over Rs 300 crore to fund the land acquisition, arguing that this would ensure the acquired land remains in the name of the temple or its deity.

The state reasoned that if it used its own funds to acquire the land, the land would legally belong to the state government, potentially diminishing the temple’s ownership rights. The HC acknowledged proposed scheme, however, cautious of potential disputes over the temple’s financial control, the HC declined the use of temple funds, citing the unresolved issue of legal authority over the temple’s management between the Goswami Sevayats.

The Supreme Court Steps In

The High Court’s order of 27 August 2024, about Sri Giriraj Temple didn’t sit well with Ishwar Chanda Sharma, one of the seven Receivers who got removed. He took the matter to the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.

The Supreme Court heard the case and gave its final decision on 15 May 2025. However, the Court did not confine it to the narrow question of Receivership at Sri Giriraj Temple. Instead, it seized the opportunity to address the systemic malaise afflicting temple administration across Mathura, including the crisis at Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir.

The court’s decision to broaden its scope was informed by the interconnected nature of the challenges faced by Mathura’s temples, which had become evident through parallel legal proceedings, such as the PIL concerning Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir, and the broader context of temple litigation in the region.

Currently, 197 temples are involved in ongoing legal disputes, and more than eight are under the care of receivers. Among these are several prominent shrines such as Vrindavan’s Radha Vallabh Mandir and Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Dauji Maharaj Mandir in Baldeo, Nandkila Nand Bhawan in Gokul, Mukharvind and Danghati temples in Govardhan, and Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj temple in Barsana.

The Supreme Court condemned this phenomenon as “Receiver Raj”, and directed the District Judge of Mathura to compile and submit a full audit of all receivership arrangements, including their duration and remuneration.

For Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir, the Supreme Court modified HC’s order, permitting the state to use the temple’s funds for land acquisition, with the condition that the land be registered in the name of the deity or the temple’s trust.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Uttar Pradesh government acted promptly, promulgating the ordinance, establishing a trust to oversee its management and execute the development scheme. The ordinance aims to address the immediate crisis at Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir, but its implications extend to Sri Giriraj Temple and beyond, highlighting the systemic nature of the challenges in Mathura.

This long journey, from a small dispute in 1999 to a government intervention in 2025 shows how deep the problems with temple management in Mathura go. The courts tried to fix things with Receivers, but that made things worse.

The stampede at Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir and the PIL that followed forced everyone to see the real danger. The Supreme Court’s judgment and the government’s new ordinance are big steps, but they’ve also started a heated debate about who should control our temples. That debate is what we’ll look at next.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ishwar Chanda Sharma vs Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors. and the subsequent takeover of Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir by the Uttar Pradesh government on 26 May 2025, have sparked a heated debate. On one side, there are those who see this as a dangerous overreach by the state into sacred Hindu spaces, threatening religious autonomy.

On the other side, people like me argue that the state’s role is necessary when temple management fails to ensure safety and dignity for devotees. As a devotee, I believe the state’s intervention in Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir is not only justified but essential, and I’ll explain why through detailed arguments grounded in facts, law, and the values of dharma.

Public Safety as a Secular Concern

The first and strongest reason for state intervention is public safety, which is a secular matter even in a religious place like a temple. Temples are sacred, yes, but they are also public spaces where thousands gather daily. When safety fails, people get hurt, or worse, they die. The 2022 stampede at Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir is a heartbreaking example.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, pointed out that the temple has been managed by a Civil Judge since 2016, but nothing improved. The stampede showed that the temple’s management was failing to keep devotees safe.

Just like we expect hospitals to have fire exits or stadiums to manage crowds, we should expect temples to be safe for the people who come to pray. The state has a duty to step in when lives are at risk, and the Constitution supports this.

Article 25(2) says the government can make rules for public safety, even in religious matters. The Supreme Court agreed, saying the state’s plan to buy 5 acres of land and build a corridor with parking, toilets, and security checks was “crucial for devotee safety”.

Failure of Temple Committees

The second reason the state had to step in was the clear failure of the temple committee to do its job. Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir isn’t a small village shrine, it’s one of the holiest places for Krishna devotees, attracting millions every year.

There are no emergency exits, no clean pathways, and no system to manage the 40,000 to 50,000 devotees who come daily or the 5 lakh during festivals.

The Supreme Court’s judgment also showed a bigger problem in Mathura: 197 temples are stuck in legal fights, many run by advocates as Receivers who delay cases to stay in control. The “Receiver Raj” has left temples like Shri Bankey Bihari in chaos, with no real management to fix things.

Accountability is Dharmic and Legal

The third argument is that temples are public spaces meant to serve millions of devotees. Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir belongs to all of us who come to pray, not just to the committee or traditional caretakers like the Goswamis.

When a temple serves so many people, it has to be accountable, both in a dharmic way (following Hindu values) and a legal way (following the law). Dharma teaches us to care for others, to serve with love, and to keep sacred spaces pure and safe. But the temple’s management has failed this duty.

There are no clean paths, no emergency exits, and no way to stop stampedes. Legally, the state has a right to step in when a temple’s management fails its public duty. The Constitution, under Article 25(2), says the government can make rules for public safety and order, even in religious places.

The Supreme Court has said this before in cases like Mrinalini Padhi vs Union of India (2018), where it told the government to fix safety issues at a shrine.

I understand why some people worry about the state taking over. They fear it might change the temple’s traditions or take away the Goswamis’ role. But the Supreme Court made sure this wouldn’t happen.

It said the 5 acres of land the state buys must stay in the deity’s name or the temple’s trust, not the government’s. This protects the temple’s sacred ownership while letting the state fix the safety problems.

In Sri Adi Visheshwara v. State of UP, the Supreme Court looked at the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act 1983, which let the government manage the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi.

The Court said that the government could regulate how the temple was run, as long as it didn’t interfere with religious practices like puja or rituals. This case shows the state can step in to manage temples when needed, as long as it respects the religious side.

In Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir, the government isn’t changing how prayers are done. It’s just fixing the space around the temple to make it safer.

The State as a Civilisational Instrument

Finally, I see the Indian state as a tool to protect Hindu heritage, not as an outsider trying to control it. Some people argue that a secular government shouldn’t manage temples because it breaks the Constitution’s rules on fairness to all religions.

They ask, “Why doesn’t the state take over mosques or gurudwaras?” But I don’t see the state as a neutral, secular outsider. India is a Hindu-majority country, and in practice, the state often acts to support Hindu traditions.

To me, the state is a civilisational instrument, a way for us, as a Hindu society, to protect our sacred spaces and devotees. The state isn’t external to us; it’s part of our society, and it should help us keep our temples safe and accessible.

I know some people compare this to the British colonial times, when the British took over Indian states saying they were “mismanaged.” They call it the Doctrine of Lapse, where the British used excuses to grab land and power. But this comparison doesn’t fit.

The British wanted to control and exploit India for their own gain. Here, the state is working under the Supreme Court’s orders to protect devotees, not to take over for profit. The land stays in the deity’s name, and the goal is safety, not power. Comparing this to colonial times ignores the real danger devotees face and the state’s duty to help.

A Deeper Question: Balancing Freedom and Safety

This debate comes down to a big question: How do we balance religious freedom with the need to keep people safe? I believe safety has to come first. If devotees are dying in stampedes or getting hurt because of bad management, we can’t ignore that just to protect the idea of freedom.

My experience with my mother, shielding her from a dangerous crowd, showed me how real this danger is. The 2022 stampede proved it too, people lost their lives trying to pray. We can’t let that happen again. The government stepping in to fix the temple is making sure we can practice our faith without fear.

But the critics’ worries aren’t wrong either. They’re afraid that if the government starts controlling temples, it might go too far. What if it takes over more temples, or starts changing how we worship? What if this is just the beginning of more government control over Hindu traditions?

They also raise a fair point about fairness, why only Hindu temples? These are real concerns, and they make us think about how much power the government should have over religious places. This debate is about the future of all Hindu temples in India.

Correctives and Middle Path Solutions

I believe we can find a middle path that keeps devotees safe while respecting Hindu traditions. Here are my ideas for fixing the problems in a fair and practical way, without letting the government intervention forever.

A Short and Open Government Role

First, the government’s role in Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir should not last forever. The Supreme Court allowed the state to step in because the temple was dangerous. But this doesn’t mean the government should control the temple permanently.

I suggest the government’s role should have a clear time limit. In that time, the state can finish the work it started, like making the temple area bigger and safer. After that, the temple should go back to a proper Hindu committee that can manage it well.

To make sure the government doesn’t overstay, everything it does should be open for everyone to see. This trust should tell the public who its members are, how it makes decisions, and how it spends the temple’s money, like the Rs 300 crore used to buy land.

This openness will help devotees trust the process and make sure the government isn’t hiding anything. If the government’s role is short and clear, it can fix the safety problems without taking away the temple’s freedom for too long.

A New Civil Temple Management Board

Once the government’s work is done, we need a better way to manage Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir and other temples in Mathura. I propose creating a Civil Temple Management Board, a group of people who can run the temple fairly and properly.

This board should have different kinds of people to make sure all voices are heard. It should include retired judges, who know the law and can make fair decisions; scholars and acharyas, who understand Hindu traditions and can guide religious practices; and common devotees, regular people like you and me, who can speak for the millions who come to pray.

To make this work, the board must include the temple’s traditional caretakers, who have looked after temple for generations. Including them in the board will make sure their knowledge and traditions are respected, while also bringing in new ideas to fix the problems. This way, the temple stays connected to its roots, but it also becomes safer and better managed for the future.

A Way Forward for All Temples

These ideas can work for other temples in Mathura too. A Civil Temple Management Board can take over these temples, one by one, and bring back proper management.

By working with Hindu civil society, the board can set an example for how temples should be run safe, fair, and true to our traditions. This middle path keeps the government’s role short and focused, while giving Hindus a way to manage our sacred spaces ourselves, with the care and responsibility they deserve.

What Dharma Demands

The journey of Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir has shown us a hard truth. The real issue here isn’t about whether the government should control temples. It’s about something much deeper: the dignity of Bhakts and Bhagwan.

Temples like Shri Bankey Bihari Mandir are sacred spaces where millions come to pray, seeking peace and a connection with God. But when devotees face danger, like the 2022 stampede that took lives, or when they’re pushed and shoved with no space to breathe, as I saw with my mother, that dignity is lost.

The Supreme Court and the State stepped in because devotees deserve better, a safe, peaceful darshan where they can focus on their faith and not their fear.

Dharma has never meant unchecked authority. It has always demanded order, restraint, competence, and above all, seva, service to Bhagwan and Bhakts alike.

As Hindus, we often talk about our right to manage our own temples, free from government control. And that right is important. But with that right comes a big responsibility. If we want to keep our temples free, we must show we can manage them well.

We need to show we can run our temples in a way that’s safe, fair, and true to our values of dharma, serving devotees with care and respect. Until we do that, we can’t expect the government or the courts to stay out.

The government’s role is a step to fix the mess, but it is not the final answer. My ideas like a short government role, and a Civil Temple Management Board with scholars, traditional families and devotees aim to find a middle path.

So, I leave you with a question to think about: Is our fight to keep temples free, or to keep temples worthy? What dharma demands is not just that temples remain in Hindu hands but that those hands be clean, competent, and worthy of the gods they claim to serve. That is the dharmic ideal. That is the civilisational expectation. And that is the only future worth fighting for.