Uttar Pradesh- On August 4, 2025, the Supreme Court questioned the "tearing hurry" with which the Uttar Pradesh Government promulgated the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, aimed at taking over the management of the Shri Bankey Bihari Temple in Vrindavan, Mathura. The ordinance seeks to transfer the temple's administration to a government-controlled "Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Mandir Nyas," comprising 11 nominated trustees and up to 7 ex-officio members, all required to be followers of Sanatana Dharma.Supreme Court's Concerns:A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi questioned the Uttar Pradesh Government's "extreme haste" in enacting the ordinance.

The ordinance is perceived as governmental interference in religious affairs, as it seeks to bring the temple's management under state control. The temple is considered a private institution, historically managed by approximately 360 sevayats, descendants of Swami Haridas Ji. It is alleged that the ordinance violates the management scheme established in 1939 and undermines the temple's autonomy.Key Arguments:Private Nature of the Temple: The temple has been managed by the descendants of Swami Haridas Ji for over 500 years. It is argued that the ordinance, by transferring management to state administration, violates constitutional religious freedom.TRASE Block Heels Sandals For Women, Dusky Stylish & Comfortable Footwear

State Interference: The ordinance includes the Mathura District Magistrate, SSP, Municipal Commissioner, and other government officials as ex-officio trustees, which has been criticized as a "backdoor" attempt at state control over a private temple.

Mala Fide Intent: The temple's management committee has labeled the timing and purpose of the ordinance as "mala fide" (malicious), alleging it aims to preempt a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad High Court.

The Supreme Court's hearing on August 4, 2025, marks a critical juncture in examining the constitutional validity of the ordinance and the legality of state interference. This case highlights the conflict between the autonomy of private religious institutions and the state's administrative actions. The upcoming hearings are likely to determine the trajectory of this controversy, particularly in balancing constitutional religious freedom with public safety concerns.