• Source:JND
Add as a preferred

The Supreme Court, while hearing a dispute case between the Shri Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan and an Uttar Pradesh government ordinance, stated that Lord Krishna was the "first mediator", adding that the matter should be resolved through mediation. The ordinance from the state government proposes to redevelop a corridor using Rs 500 crore from temple funds, leading to the controversy. The top court also proposed a committee to resolve the issue, further questioning the constitutional validity of the ordinance.

"Lord Krishna was the first mediator...please try to mediate the matter," the top court asserted. It further stated that the constitutional validity of the ordinance will be first checked by the Allahabad High Court, further questioning the government about the "hurry" to pass the order. While hearing the case, Justice Kant asked why the government did not acquire the land as per the laws.

ALSO READ: India Plans Support Measures To Shield Exporters From Trump Tariffs; Fiscal Incentives On Cards

"What was the tearing hurry for the Ordinance?" Justice Kant reportedly asked the state. Earlier on May 15, the Supreme Court had allowed the UP government to use temple funds to build the corridor. However, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi orally proposed to withdraw the order, reported Live Law.

"The matter before this Court did not pertain to Banke Bihari temple. A public notice could have been issued...was there any Court-appointed receiver? It was not a case of No Man's Land. Someone had to be heard on the behalf of the temple," Justice Kant was quoted as saying by Live Law.

ALSO READ: Gurugram Metro Update: Phase 1 Construction Likely To Start By THIS Month; Know Route, Cost, Other Details

"Some public notice should have been issued by this Court...that on account of the pending dispute between the warring groups...this is what we are proposing...temple funds will have to be utilized for pilgrims, can't be pocketed by private persons," he added.

Justice Kant stated that the state government had filed an application in a "clandestine manner, not allowing the other party to be heard".