Supreme Court Mandates Direct Deposit of All Banke Bihari Temple Donations

Supreme Court Enforces Direct Donation Protocol for Banke Bihari Temple

In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court of India has mandated that all contributions to the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan must be directed through official donation boxes or online transfers to the temple treasury. This directive was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana. The bench emphasized, “Every penny of donation must come through the donation boxes or online [into the] temple treasury. Any impediment by sevayats (temple servants) or others will be taken very seriously.”

The court further instructed the temple’s managing committee to develop a transparent system for handling donations, aiming to prevent any malpractices. This ruling is part of a broader judicial review concerning the management and administration of the temple’s affairs, including the handling of its financial resources and the oversight by a managing committee.

The controversy arose following the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to regulate the temple’s management under a statutory framework introduced by the Uttar Pradesh Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. This ordinance aimed to replace the longstanding 1939 Scheme of Management, which covered the temple’s administration and rituals, including financial matters and darshan practices.

The move to establish a state-controlled trust sparked debate over the extent of government involvement in religious institutions. In response, the Supreme Court previously established a high-powered committee led by former Allahabad High Court Justice Ashok Kumar to supervise the temple’s daily operations. This committee is responsible for ensuring essential services to devotees and planning the temple’s development, including land acquisition if necessary.

In May 2025, the court permitted the Uttar Pradesh government to utilize temple funds for acquiring five acres of land around the temple, facilitating its corridor development, with the condition that the land is registered in the deity’s name.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, raised concerns about the alleged misuse of temple funds by the managing committee for property acquisitions. Divan questioned the committee’s authority to purchase properties and highlighted ongoing legal challenges to the temple management legislation, particularly issues relating to Article 25 of the Constitution, which safeguards religious freedom.

CJI Kant queried the source of funds for development activities like setting up a medical clinic, pointing out the need for managing resources effectively. Divan also expressed concerns over darshan regulation, citing past incidents of overcrowding and suggesting a ticketing or online system to manage the flow of devotees.

The court underscored that contributions from devotees need to be deposited with the deity first, rather than collected directly by individuals associated with the temple. An intervenor for the deity claimed that funds collected by bhandaris were for bhog (food offerings) and protected by a civil court decree. However, the court clarified that any such collection must first be offered to the deity before the sevayats could claim their share.