The Supreme Court of India has mandated the Uttar Pradesh government to devise a comprehensive development strategy for the area surrounding the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan. This directive aims to enhance infrastructure and manage the increasing number of visitors to the historic site.
Development Plan Requirements
In its directive, the bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized the need for an inclusive plan. The proposal should address road expansion, regulation of commercial activities, and improvements to civic amenities. This includes the establishment of hotels, dharamshalas, drinking water facilities, restrooms, emergency exits, public transportation, and electric vehicle services for senior citizens.
Challenges in Temple Management
The case in question challenges the Uttar Pradesh government’s initiative to manage the temple through a statutory trust framework. Justice Bagchi pointed out that unlike Tirupati, which benefits from a more expansive setting, the Banke Bihari Temple is located in a congested area with narrow passages, complicating crowd management.
Historical Context and Court’s Recommendations
CJI Surya Kant highlighted the historical significance of the temple, recounting its origins tied to Sant Haridas and Mughal emperor Akbar. The Chief Justice urged the state to adopt innovative solutions and submit a detailed development plan to the court for further review.
Alterations in Temple Practices
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the Goswami management, expressed concerns over changes in traditional practices, such as altered darshan timings and modifications to the dhairya puja ritual. He noted a new requirement for a ₹1,51,000 payment for the Phool Bangla Seva, a departure from the earlier practice of only covering electricity and associated costs.
Committee Reorganization
The Supreme Court replaced the existing Goswami representatives on the temple committee with four new members: Rajat Goswami and Shailendra Goswami from the Shayan Bhog group, and Gopesh Goswami and Himanshu Goswami from the Raj Bhog group. The court assured that the committee would consider their inputs on preserving religious practices and managing daily operations. The bench also clarified that the committee’s work should not interfere with the temple’s essential religious rituals.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan and Advocate Tanvi Dubey, with Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appearing for the state.
