Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently canceled the appointment of a seven-member committee, mostly made up of lawyers, to manage Sri Giriraj Temple in Govardhan, Mathura.

The judgment, delivered by the bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, also highlighted the troubling trend in Mathura, where almost all of the 197 listed temples, including those in Vrindavan, Govardhan, and Barsana, are under the grip of 'receivers' appointed under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. Court noted that in these temples, practicing advocates of Mathura Court have been appointed receivers and their interest appears in keeping the litigation about the temple pending.

These temples have been embroiled in civil litigation for decades, some since as far back as 1923, with little to no resolution in sight, court noted. 

It added that in most of the temples, the litigation is in respect of the management of the temple and since the entire control of temple administration vests in the hands of the receiver, no effort is made to conclude the civil proceedings.

Furthermore, court opined that a practicing lawyer is unlikely to have the time required for effectively managing a temple, particularly in Vrindavan and Goverdhan, where temple administration demands both specialized skills and complete dedication. In Mathura, such positions have increasingly become symbols of status, it said. 

Court stressed that now, the time has come to release these temples from the control of practicing advocates in Mathura. 

Courts should strive to appoint, if necessary, a receiver who has experience in temple management and a religious affinity for the deity, the single judge bench held. 

Court held that the receiver appointed by the court should be well-versed with the Vedas and Shastras.

Moreover, court emphasised that efforts should be made to dispose of the suit involving temple disputes at the earliest and matters should not linger for decades.

Court noted that the case at hand was filed on May 10, 1999, and it had not been decided despite 25 years having elapsed.

Therefore, court asked the court below to expedite the matter and proceed to decide the same without wasting any time in appointing a receiver and continuing the management through them.

Court further held that the order dated March 28, 2023, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura appointing a Seven Member Committee for Sri Giriraj Temple was liable to be set aside as "it was not based on any sound principle of law".

Court said that the court below should follow the writ court's order from November 23, 2021, in Matters under Article 227 No. 4468 of 2021, and handle the receiver application in accordance with Order XL Rule 1, while making every effort to exclude advocates from this role.

Court asked the District Judge of Mathura to personally ensure that his officers are informed about the present order and to work diligently to resolve the civil disputes concerning temples and trusts in the Mathura district as swiftly as possible.

"Prolonging the litigation is only creating further disputes in the temples and leading to indirect involvement of practising advocates and district administration in the temples, which is not in the interest of the people having faith in Hindu religion," it said. 

The management of the Sri Giriraj Temple has been a contentious issue for years. The dispute began with the Sri Giriraj Sewak Samiti managing the temple until 1998. Legal disputes over the management committee ensued, and despite various court orders and changes in individuals involved, a lawyer, Nand Kishore Upadhyay, was appointed as Receiver in July 2021. This appointment was later challenged, leading to the decision to form a seven-member committee to oversee the temple.

The present judgment came in a contempt application filed by a third party seeking to punish Ruchi Tiwari, ACJ(Senior Division) for appointment of the seven-member committee.

The applicant claimed that the high court while disposing of a case in 2021 on the temple had set aside the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura appointing an advocate as a receiver. The applicant said that the court below was then required to decide the application for appointment of receiver afresh on merits.

Although the court below proceeded to decide the application for appointment of Receiver on March 28, 2023, it appointed a seven member committee of receiver which included three lawyers, the applicant pointed out.

The applicant argued that an individual linked to the temple, rather than a committee, should have been appointed.

The high court has now remitted the matter back to the civil court for consideration of the application for a receiver's appointment afresh in the light of the directions of the high court.

Case Title: Devendra Kumar Sharma And Another v. Ruchi Tiwari, Acj(Senior Division)