SC questions state for intervening in a dispute between private parties over running temples
On Tuesday, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and SC Sharma sought to know how the state sought to became a party in the proceedings and said that such interventions will lead to breakdown of rule of law.
3 min read
The SC set aside the January 12, 2022, order passed by a full bench of AHRC disposing of the issueThe Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government for intervening in what was a dispute between private parties over administration and safety of temples in the Braj region, to seek approval of its plan for redevelopment of the shrine.
It was on an intervention application filed by the state in a matter pertaining to such a dispute that the apex court on May 15 approved the state’s proposal to use funds from the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan for buying five acres around it for a corridor project.
In November 2023, the Allahabad High Court, while clearing the corridor plan, had restrained the state from using temple funds for buying the land. The state challenged this through the intervention application.
On Tuesday, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and SC Sharma sought to know how the state sought to became a party in the proceedings and said that such interventions will lead to breakdown of rule of law.
“Was the state a party to the proceedings? In what capacity has the state entered the dispute? If states start entering into a private dispute between parties it will breakdown of rule of law. You can’t hijack the litigation. In a private litigation between two parties, state filing an impleadment application and hijacking it is not permissible,” said the bench.
The remarks came as the court was hearing a plea seeking modification of the May 15 order.
The court was hearing a plea by Devendra Nath Gooswami who claimed to be “lineal descendant” of the Banke Bihari temple’s founder Swami Hari Das Goswami. He claimed that his family had been managing the shrine’s affairs for the last 500 years.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for him said funds worth Rs 300 crore had been given to the state without making us the party.
“How can you by an order in another petition direct that earning of a private temple be handed over to the state,” Sibal wondered.
State government counsel said the state had set up a trust to manage the temple and oversee the work on the proposed corridor and that the money would vest with the trust not the government. The bench asked the state’s counsel to give a copy of the ordinance regarding the trust and with regard to the trust to the petitioner. It also asked the concerned principal secretary to file an affidavit by July 29.
Goswami contended that the proposed “redevelopment risks altering the essential religious and cultural character of the temple and its surrounding ecosystem, which holds deep historical and devotional significance.”
You May Like
Photos
