In a significant judgment delivered on May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed critical issues concerning the management and administration of temples in the sacred towns of Mathura and Vrindavan. The Civil Appeal, Ishwar Chanda Sharma v/s Devendra Kumar Sharma & Others , heard by the Honourable Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and the Honourable Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, arose from a Contempt Application challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court. The case highlighted a concerning trend of prolonged litigation and the appointment of receivers, particularly advocates, in the administration of these important religious institutions.
The Genesis of the Dispute and Prolonged Litigation:
The core of the dispute revolved around the Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti, a registered society formed in 1957 to manage the affairs of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Mathura. Peaceful administration was disrupted in 1999 following contested committee elections. This led to a civil suit in 1999 seeking a permanent injunction against interference in the temple's management. Over the years, the litigation saw various developments, including the appointment of an advocate as Receiver by the Trial Court in 2021, an order that was later set aside by the High Court, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Subsequently, the Trial Court appointed a Seven-Member Committee of Receivers, which included three lawyers. Aggrieved by this, respondents initiated a contempt petition, arguing that the Trial Court had defied the High Court's earlier directive for the appointment of a single receiver. The High Court, in its order dated August 27, 2024, set aside the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that the civil suit had been pending for over 25 years with only plaintiff evidence concluded. It noted that many temples in the region were under receiver administration, often managed by practicing advocates. The High Court further directed the Trial Court to endeavor to appoint a receiver with a connection to temple management and a religious inclination towards the deity.
Supreme Court's Scrutiny and Directions:
The Supreme Court took serious note of the "glaring state of affairs" in Mathura, particularly concerning the administration of temple trusts. The Court observed that receivership had become "the new norm" in Mathura, with many famous and ancient temples embroiled in legal battles and managed by court-appointed receivers, often practicing advocates whose interest might lie in prolonging litigation.
Analyzing Order XL Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), which governs the appointment of receivers, the Supreme Court reiterated that while courts have discretion to appoint receivers for property preservation and management, this power must be exercised with great care. The Court expressed dismay at the original suit's 25-year pendency, with receivers seemingly making no effort to expedite the proceedings and instead perpetuating their control over temple administration.
The judgment also touched upon the broader administrative issues in Mathura, including the Shri Banke Bihari Temple, which faced a stampede in 2022 due to inadequate infrastructure for large crowds. The Court noted that the Allahabad High Court was seized of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding this temple's development, including a scheme for land acquisition to create a corridor for devotees. While the High Court had accepted the scheme, it had refused to permit the utilization of temple funds for land purchase.
Final Directives and Future Implications:
The Supreme Court expressed its "pains" at the maladministration and the prolonged litigation in these sacred places. It emphasized that the time had come to "free these temples from the clutches of practising advocates" and that courts should strive to appoint receivers who are genuinely connected with temple management, possess religious leaning towards the deity, and are well-versed in the Vedas and Shastras.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court modified the Allahabad High Court's order in the PIL concerning Shri Banke Bihari Temple. It permitted the State of Uttar Pradesh to utilize the temple funds for purchasing land around the Temple, provided the acquired land is registered in the name of the Deity/Trust. Furthermore, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura, was directed to comply with the High Court's earlier order and appoint a receiver with relevant administrative, historical, religious, and social background, preferably belonging to the Vaishnav Sampradaya.
This judgment underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring proper and devout administration of religious institutions, emphasizing expeditious resolution of legal disputes and the appointment of suitable individuals to manage temple affairs. The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for temple management across the region.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
