Published on: August 08, 2025 11:22 pm IST
Additional Solicitor General told the bench that HC conducted “parallel proceedings” and made some “unfair observation” in the order.
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in a clever of the historic Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan and questioned the use of “intimate language” against the Uttar Pradesh government.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Joymlya Bagchi instigated the orders of the High Court on a pilot on 21 July and 6 August, which challenged the ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Banki Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 and visited them.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appeared for the Government of Uttar Pradesh, told the bench that the High Court “took parallel action” on the issue and made some “unfair observation” in the order.
“What kind of intensive language is being used by the High Court? The state has committed a sin by passing an ordinance. What is all this? Did the High Court not inform that the Supreme Court was confiscated the case?” The bench said.
Justice Kant further said that petitions challenging the constitutional validity of a law were always listed before the Division Bench, but a single judge passed the order in the current case.
The bench ordered a stay on the comments made in the order of July 21, in which an amicus Curia was appointed as an amicus Curia in addition to the August 6 order against the state.
The apex court also took further action before the High Court in the petition challenging the ordinance.
This asked the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to consider listing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the ordinance before a division bench along with other petitions.
On 6 August, the High Court criticized the state government’s move to propose a statutory trust to manage the historic Banke Bihari temple and saw that the state had committed a ‘sin’.
During the hearing, the single judge made a sharp comment on the state government’s attempt to handle the administration of the temple and asked the government to “leave the temple alone”.
