Supreme Court Expresses Concerns At Several Temples In UP Coming Under Receivership Of Advocates, Seeks Report From Mathura District Court

Taking note of issues surrounding temple administration in Uttar Pradesh, and the "vested interest" of Advocates appointed as Receivers in keeping litigations around such issues pending, the Supreme Court recently called for a report from Principal District Judge, Mathura.

The report sought from the District Judge shall specify the following:

i. List of Temples in the District of Mathura in respect of which the litigations are pending and in which the Receivers appointed by the Courts.

ii. Since when such litigations are pending and the status of such proceedings.

iii. The names and status of the persons, particularly of the Advocates appointed by the Courts as Receivers.

iv. The remuneration, if any, being paid to the Receivers appointed in such proceedings.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order, while dealing with the plea of petitioner-Ishwar Chanda Sharma, appointed by a Mathura Court as member of a Committee for management and operation (ie Receiver/Manager) of a temple. His grievance is that the Mathura Court order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court and the matter remitted back for fresh consideration.

Perusing the High Court order, which made "glaring observations" regarding temples in the state of UP being "gripped by legal battles" and receivership becoming "the new norm" in Mathura, the bench said,

"it appears that the issues of Temple administration, and the appointment of Receivers in the suits pertaining to the Temple administration, have become most difficult conundrum for the Courts and very lucrative court proceedings for the Advocates in the State of Uttar Pradesh, especially in the District Mathura".

Further, it underlined that Courts cannot be permitted to be used/misused for the benefit of a group of people, who would have vested interest in prolonging the litigations. "Nobody should be permitted to abuse or misuse the process of law under the guise of prolonged litigations in the Court".

To put briefly, the High Court had observed in its order that out of 197 temples mentioned in a list prepared by District Judge, Mathura, there were civil litigations pending with respect to temples situated at Vrindavan, Govardhan, Baldeo, Gokul, Barsana, Maath etc. These litigations ranged from 1923-2024 and practicing advocates of Mathura Court had been appointed Receivers in them.

"The interest of Receiver lies in keeping the litigation pending. No effort is made to conclude the civil proceedings, as the entire control of temple administration vest in the hands of Receiver. Most of the litigation is in respect of management of temples and appointment of Receivers."

It was further noted that 8 temples ie Radha Vallabh Mandir, Vrindavan; Dauji Maharaj Mandir, Baldeo; Nandkila Nand Bhawan Mandir, Gokul; Mukharbind, Govardhan; Danghati, Govardhan; Anant Shri Bhibhushit, Vrindavan and Mandir Shree Ladli Ji Maharaj, Barsana are under the grip of Receivers and most of them are managed by practicing advocates of Mathura.

Calling for Advocates to be kept away from management of the temples, the High Court stated,

"time has come when all these temples should be freed from the clutches of practising advocates of Mathura Court and Courts should make every endeavour to appoint, if necessary, a Receiver who is connected with the management of a temple and has some religious leaning towards the deity. He should also be well versed with the Vedas and Shastras. Advocates and people from district administration should be kept away from the management and control of these ancient temples. Effort should be made for disposing of the suit, involving temple disputes at the earliest and matter should not be lingered for decades."

Case Title: ISHWAR CHANDA SHARMA VERSUS DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS., Diary No(s). 52096/2024

Click here to read the order