SC To Hear Plea Over Haridwar Temple Receiver Appointment On Aug 19

Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court will on August 19 take up a petition by Mahant Bhawani Nandan Giri, the sevayat (chief priest and custodian) of Haridwar’s Maa Chandi Devi temple, challenging an Uttarakhand High Court order that placed the shrine’s management under the Badri Kedar Temple Committee (BKTC).

A bench led by Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti had earlier sought a reply from the state government and clarified that any step taken by the BKTC would remain subject to the outcome of the case.

Petitioner’s Objections

The sevayat, represented by advocate Ashwani Dubey, argues that the High Court passed its order without hearing him and without any complaint of mismanagement. He pointed out that the temple, established in the 8th century by Adi Shankaracharya, has been cared for by his family for generations.

He further noted that a monitoring panel of the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police of Haridwar, set up by the High Court in 2012, has been supervising the shrine without reporting any irregularities. The High Court’s intervention, he claims, was “arbitrary and in violation of natural justice.”

Case Background

The order in question was issued during the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea filed by Reena Bisht, who claims to be the partner of Rohit Giri, the temple’s head priest. Giri’s wife, Geetanjali, had lodged an FIR on May 21 accusing Bisht of trying to run over her son. On the same day, Giri was arrested by Punjab Police in a separate molestation case and remains in custody.

While hearing Bisht’s bail plea, the High Court remarked on “mismanagement” in the trust, observing that the temple atmosphere had become “toxic” and warning of possible misuse of donations.

The petitioner insists that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by altering temple management in a bail matter, especially when the DM-SSP panel was already in place. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the High Court’s move to bring the shrine under the BKTC was legally justified.