The Supreme Court has issued notices to authorities over a legal challenge to changes in darshan timings and temple practices at the Bankey Bihari Ji Temple in Vrindavan, sharply questioning the practice of allowing affluent devotees to perform paid “special pujas” that, it said, disrupt the declared resting period of the shrine’s principal deity. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pamcholi, sought written responses from the Uttar Pradesh government and the Supreme Court-appointed high-powered management committee before hearing the matter again in the first week of January 2026.
Petitioners, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan and lawyer Tanvi Dubey, argued that adjustments to darshan schedules and the cessation of longstanding rituals have diluted the temple’s spiritual traditions and introduced commercial elements into worship. Divan submitted that darshan timings are deeply tied to ritual rhythms — including when the deity is believed to “wake” and “rest” — and that alterations undermine these sacred cycles.
The bench voiced strong reservations about practices that appear to privilege wealthier visitors. “After closing the temple at 12 noon, they do not allow the deity to rest even for a second and they exploit the deity like anything,” the Chief Justice observed orally during the hearing, emphasising that affluent devotees were being permitted to conduct special pujas during the resting period.
The legal challenge is rooted in wider governance changes at the Bankey Bihari temple triggered by the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, which sets up a state-controlled trust to oversee the shrine’s administration. That legislative move, and the subsequent constitution of a High-Powered Temple Management Committee by the Supreme Court earlier this year, has been contested by traditional custodians and sevayats, who say it interferes with age-old practices.
The petition points to several contentious elements of temple management that have emerged under the new regime. Alongside modified darshan timings, devotees have raised objections to the discontinuation of the Dehri Puja — a ritual historically performed by guru and disciple in the temple’s closed hours. Lawyers for the petitioners say this ritual is integral to the shrine’s spiritual continuity and should not have been discontinued without consensus from traditional custodians.
Disputes over the governance framework reflect deeper tensions about the role of government and judicial intervention in religious institutions. The 1939 Scheme of Management, which for decades guided the temple’s administration and rituals, is now being phased out in favour of the trust model envisioned under the 2025 ordinance. Critics argue that state involvement risks eroding the temple’s unique Vaishnavite traditions.
Senior counsel Divan told the court that darshan timings have historically adhered to strict seasonal schedules and are interwoven with internal rituals, including those determining when the deity is ceremonially woken and put to rest. He said the altered schedule, enacted through office memoranda in September, 2025, has upset these practices and enabled commercialised access that was previously absent.
The Supreme Court’s intervention also prompts scrutiny of how temples balance accessibility with tradition. Temple authorities have defended the changes as measures to improve crowd management and reduce stampede risks, particularly given the shrine’s immense popularity among pilgrims. Yet the petitioners counter that logistical reforms should not come at the cost of core religious observances.
The bench directed that the member-secretary of the High-Powered Temple Committee be impleaded as a respondent alongside the state government, underscoring the court’s intent to examine the issue comprehensively. By seeking formal responses rather than issuing immediate directives, the apex court signalled its intent to weigh the competing concerns of tradition, administration and devotees’ rights.
