Summary
In an appeal by a member of a seven-member receiver committee (including three advocates) appointed by the trial court to manage the Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, in a suit pending since 1999, the Court upheld the High Court's view that courts cannot run temples through receivers for decades under Order XL Rule 1 CPC and directed the trial court to appoint a receiver with administrative experience and a historical, religious and social background, preferably from the Vaishnav Sampradaya, rather than advocates. Exercising its plenary jurisdiction in the public interest, it also modified the High Court's PIL order on the Shri Banke Bihari Temple to permit the State to use the temple's fixed deposits to buy land for the proposed corridor, the land to be held in the name of the deity or trust.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the trial court's order appointing a seven-member committee of receivers, including practising advocates, for the temple, and in directing that advocates be kept away from such receiverships.
- What considerations govern the appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 CPC for a temple or trust whose management is in dispute in a long-pending suit.
- Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh should be permitted, in these proceedings, to utilise the funds of the Shri Banke Bihari Temple to purchase land for the development of a corridor, contrary to the High Court's order in the pending PIL.
Provisions considered
- Order XL Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A receiver may be appointed where it appears just and convenient, to protect, preserve and manage the property pending the suit, with powers under Rule 1(d) including bringing and defending suits. The Court endorsed the High Court's view that the discretion must be exercised with great care; receivership was intended as a stop-gap, and courts cannot, in the garb of this rule, prolong litigation and run a temple through receivers for decades without deciding the lis. The seven-member committee order frustrated the provision. (¶¶ 4.10, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Section 94, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Referred to in the High Court's reasoning, reproduced by the Court, as the controlling source of the power to grant interim relief including appointment of a receiver, to be exercised to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated and only where the facts satisfy the rules. (¶ 6)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaRelying on Rajeev Suri (Central Vista), the Court held that once a cause of this nature reaches it the concern is complete justice and expeditious resolution of all aspects in the larger public interest; being seized of the administration and safety of temples in the Braj region, it decided the State's request concerning the Banke Bihari Temple corridor itself, though the PIL was pending in the High Court. (¶¶ 11.9, 18, 19)
- Articles 25 and 26, Constitution of IndiaNoted through the State's reliance on Article 25(2) and Mrinalini Padhi, and the High Court's PIL order holding that religious rights under Articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order, morality and health so that the State is bound to provide safe facilities for devotees even at private temples. The Court did not adjudicate the inter se rights of the State and the Sevayats. (¶¶ 11.2, 12.4, 17)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe appellant contended that excluding practising advocates from receivership created an arbitrary classification violating Article 14. The Court did not accept the challenge and instead endorsed appointing receivers with religious and administrative background rather than advocates. (¶¶ 5, 9.4, 23, 24)
Held
- The administration of temples and the appointment of receivers in temple suits has become a difficult conundrum for the courts and lucrative for advocates in Mathura district; courts, as temples of justice, cannot be used for the benefit of a group with a vested interest in prolonging litigation, and no one may abuse the process of law under the guise of prolonged litigation. (¶ 6)
- The problem extends beyond the eligibility of a receiver for the Giriraj Temple: a suit pending for over 25 years with only receivers running the show shows that maladministration runs deep and wide, and other temples in the belt including the Banke Bihari Temple, administered by a civil judge and the site of a 2022 stampede, face severe crowd-management problems. Development of Mathura and Vrindavan must be a collective effort of the Government, trusts, people and other agencies. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Under Article 142 and the principle in Rajeev Suri, the Court, being seized of the cause concerning administration and safety of temples in the Braj region, decided the State's request itself in the public interest. The State was permitted to implement its corridor scheme in its entirety and to use the fixed deposits held in the name of the deity or temple to acquire the proposed five acres, the High Court's PIL order being modified to that extent, provided the land acquired is held in the name of the deity or trust. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 24)
- Historical temples need proper upkeep; receivers appointed for decades defeat the purpose of what was meant to be a temporary stop-gap. Courts appointing receivers for temples in Mathura and Vrindavan, the most sacred places of the Vaishnav Sampradayas, should appoint persons from those Sampradayas with adequate administrative experience and historical, religious and social background, and not advocates, giving effect to the High Court's directions. (¶ 23)
- The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura was directed to comply with the High Court's order of 27.08.2024 and appoint a receiver having relevant administrative experience and a historical, religious and social background, preferably belonging to the Vaishnav Sampradaya. (¶ 24)
Result
Appeal and IAs disposed of: trial court directed to comply with the High Court order dated 27.08.2024 and appoint a receiver with administrative experience and historical, religious and social background, preferably from the Vaishnav Sampradaya; High Court's order in PIL No. 1509 of 2022 modified to permit the State to use the Banke Bihari Temple's fixed deposits to buy land for the corridor scheme, the land to be held in the name of the deity or trust; parties to bear their own costs; pending applications disposed of.