Supreme Court-Appointed Temple Panel Can Extend Banke Bihari Darshan Timings To Ease Pilgrim Influx; Allahabad High Court Dismisses Contempt Plea
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has dismissed a contempt application alleging that a Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Temple Management Committee, headed by Justice Ashok Kumar (Retd.), breached the High Court’s November 2022 directions by extending darshan hours at the Thakur Shri Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Vrindavan, Mathura. The Court held that no wilful disobedience was made out, noting that the Committee was authorised by the Supreme Court to supervise the temple’s day-to-day functioning and had expanded darshan timings to address the heavy pilgrim influx and resultant hardship.
The contempt application was instituted by the applicant alleging wilful disobedience of an order dated 28.11.2022 passed in earlier public interest litigation concerning the management and upkeep of a temple situated at Vrindavan, Mathura. The grievance arose after darshan timings of the temple were increased pursuant to a resolution passed by a High-Powered Temple Management Committee constituted by the Supreme Court.
The applicant contended that a prior order of the Division Bench had stayed an order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura, which had increased darshan timings, and that the subsequent increase by the Committee violated the subsisting restraint. It was asserted that the Committee’s resolution and the office memorandum issued thereafter amounted to an administrative act overriding a judicial order.
The opposite parties contended that the Committee was constituted by the Supreme Court to oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning of the temple and that the increase in darshan timings was within the scope of authority granted by the apex court. Reliance was placed on the directions issued by the Supreme Court empowering the Committee to address operational issues affecting devotees.
The contempt jurisdiction was invoked under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking punishment of the opposite parties and enforcement of the earlier order.
The Court examined whether the order dated 28.11.2022 had been wilfully disobeyed. It observed that “the controversy regarding preparation of proper scheme of management and upkeep of Shri Thakur Banke Bihari Ji Temple at Vrindavan is in active consideration of both this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court.”
The Court recorded that “looking to the urgency of the matter and administerial deadlock and in-fighting amongst the people in-charge of the management of the Temple, the Hon’ble Apex Court appointed a High-Powered Temple Management Committee.” It noted that the Committee had been constituted pursuant to directions issued on 08.08.2025 and was entrusted with overseeing and supervising the day-to-day functioning inside and outside the temple.
While referring to the earlier stay order, the Court observed that “the order dated 28.11.2022 takes note of the fact that Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura had passed the order increasing the darshan time… and the Court, while dealing with Public Interest Litigation (PIL), stayed the said order.” However, it clarified that the Committee’s actions stemmed from authority conferred by the Supreme Court.
The Court further observed that “the High-Powered Temple Management Committee has been constituted as per direction of Hon’ble Apex Court who has to function as per directions as contained in the said judgment.” It recorded that the Committee had resolved to increase darshan timings in view of the heavy influx of pilgrims and the hardships faced by devotees.
Addressing the reliance placed on precedent by the applicant, the Court stated that “reliance placed by applicant counsel on the decision rendered in case of C Lalitha does not help his case but in fact helps the case of opposite party.”
The Court recorded that “I find that the order dated 28.11.2022 has not been flouted or violated by opposite parties. No case for contempt is made out as opposite parties are the Committee constituted by Hon’ble Apex Court.” The Court concluded that the Committee had acted within the scope of authority granted to it for supervising the day-to-day functioning of the temple. Consequently, “the contempt application fails and stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant: Rajeev Goswami, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Rahul Agarwal, Senior Advocate
Case Title: Gaurav Goswami v. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar (Retd.) and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:15921
Case Number: Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5608 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
