The government of Uttar Pradesh has requested the Supreme Court to let it manage eight temples in Mathura, wherein Advocates were earlier appointed as court receivers, till the pendency of civil suits.
The Bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma was on Thursday hearing a case related to the appointment of advocates as receivers of Temples in Uttar Pradesh.
Appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa urged the Apex Court to issue directions for an early verdict in the cases.
He further requested the Bench to consider permitting the Parishad to either administer directly or appoint people who could run the day-to-day affairs of the temples, in collaboration with locals, till the time the court disputes were not settled.
Referring to the recent State Legislation regarding the protection and preservation of the heritage of Mathura temples, Senior Advocate Pahwa said the Act mandated the establishment of a State Parishad having an expert body to manage the temples in Mathura till the conclusion of court proceedings.
Since such temples received funds or offerings from devotees to the tune of lakhs of rupees, proper receivers were needed for their management. The body of experts would comprise locals, having no other interest but to administer holistically, he added.
Referring to Shri Banke Bihari Temple established in 1864, the Senior Counsel highlighted that the main temple area was only 500 square yards but received a massive footfall of devotees.
Everyday, 40,000-50,000 pilgrims visited the temple. The figure swelled up to 1.5-2 lakh on weekends and increased to more than five lakh during festivals. The total area of the temple was 1,200 sq ft.
As per Pahwa, the state had submitted in 2022 before the Allahabad High Court that to manage the crowd and build a better holding area and corridor for the devotees at the temple, it was taking steps to buy an additional five acres of land in the name of the temple.
The State had no interest in the management within the temple premises, but only wanted to facilitate the devotees. The government of Uttar Pradesh was not interested in going directly inside the temple. It did not want any ownership rights on the temple, but the welfare of worshippers around it, he added.
The Senior Counsel further submitted that though the High Court sanctioned the scheme, it said the funds of the temple could not be used for any other purposes. The state was now seeking permission from the Apex Court to buy additional land out of the temple funds in the name of the temple., he added
The petition was filed by one Ishwar Chanda Sharma, appointed by a Mathura court as member of a Committee for the management and operation (Receiver/Manager) of a temple in Uttar Pradesh.
He contended that the Mathura court order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
In December 2024, the Apex Court raised concerns at the Mathura temples coming under the receivership of advocates.
Appearing for the appellants, AOR Abhikalp Pratap Singh and Advocate Kartikay argued that Order 40 of CPC, which detailed the procedure for the appointment of receivers, did not implicitly or explicitly specify any requirement. It was solely on the discretion of the Court for the appointment of receivers.
They said Rule 1 of Order 40 CPC granted power to the Court to appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree, in case the Court found it just and convenient.
The Court may remove any person from the possession or custody of the property. It may commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver, or confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bringing and defending suits and for the realisation, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thought fit.
The Counsels emphasised on sub-clause (d), stating that an Advocate would very much fit the role of defending suits and management of the temple.
Relying on Paragraph 29 of the impugned order, they said that an Advocate could also be considered fit in terms of his devotion and connectivity with the deity.
The Supreme Court had held in December last year that the time has come for all temples to be freed from the clutches of practising advocates of Mathura court.
The Courts should make every endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a Receiver connected with the management of a temple and having some religious leaning towards the deity. He should also be well-versed with the Vedas and Shastras.
Advocates and people from the district administration should be kept away from the management and control of these ancient temples. Efforts should be made for disposing of the suit, involving temple disputes at the earliest and matter should not be lingered for decades, it added.
Representing the Respondents, Advocate Prachi Nirwan apprised the top court of the country that subsequent to the impugned order of the High Court, on September 14, 2024, the Mathura district court appointed a fresh receiver – Krishan Kumar Sharma, who is receiving Rs 20,000 per month.
Since the impugned order has been followed through, the present matter becomes infructuous, noted Advocate Nirwan.
Objecting to the State government’s petition seeking permission to manage temple management, she said the application sought to administer the temple funds. This would affect the members of the committee running the temple in question.
She placed reliance on Section 22 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, which provides that the Government cannot hold charge of the property for support of any mosque or temple.
Noting that the temple dispute before the Mathura Court has been pending for 25 years, she urged the Apex Court to issue directions for proceedings to be fast-tracked.
Dr. Subramanium Swamy also filed an application opposing the Uttar Pradesh government’s petition seeking administrative control over the temples. Swamy contended that the temple administration could not be permanently given to the state government as held in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs State of Tamil Nadu. Doing so would be violative of the fundamental rights of the devotees under Articles 14, 25, 26 and 31A of the Constitution, he added.
Since his petition was not listed on Thursday, he was not allowed to argue in the matter.
The top court of the country further refused to hear Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija, representing the original defendant in the temple suit, on the grounds that the impleadment application was earlier dismissed on defaults.