The Supreme Court on Friday expressed serious reservations about the functioning and administration of the Shani Shingnapur temple in Maharashtra, observing that the manner in which the temple trust has been operating has raised substantial doubts that warrant judicial intervention to safeguard the shrine. The court indicated that the level of concern surrounding the management was such that immediate steps were necessary to ensure transparency and accountability.
The observations came while the apex court was hearing a dispute between the Maharashtra government and the Shani Shingnapur temple management trust regarding control over the temple’s administration and finances. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court stayed a Bombay High Court judgment dated December 12, along with a subsequent order passed by the Collector of Ahilyanagar. Both orders relate to the governance and financial oversight of the temple.
Remarking on the situation, the court stated that the trust had “created so much doubt” about how the temple was being managed that protective measures were required. The bench underlined that the intervention was aimed at preserving the integrity of the temple and ensuring that its administration functioned in a lawful and orderly manner.
During the hearing, the Maharashtra government informed the court that the temple employs more than 2,400 people and spends over Rs 2.5 crore every month on salaries and related expenses. The state alleged that there were serious instances of financial mismanagement and pointed out that several members of the trust were facing proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. These claims, the government argued, justified closer scrutiny and temporary administrative control.
The trust, however, strongly denied the allegations. Its counsel told the court that the accusations were politically motivated and driven by the impending elections. He argued that the trust had been managing the temple for several years without issue and that the Charity Commissioner had already examined and cleared the accounts. The counsel also noted that the Collector had taken charge of the accounts in September and issued notices to the trust on December 12.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raised pointed questions about the scale of the temple’s operations. He asked why the Shani Shingnapur temple required as many as 2,400 employees and remarked that the trustees appeared to have considerable political influence. Observing that the trust was dealing with hundreds of crores of rupees, the Chief Justice noted that the current committee’s term was set to expire on December 31. He clarified that the court was not drawing conclusions at this stage but was highlighting issues that needed explanation.
The Solicitor General, appearing for the state, informed the court that new rules governing the temple trust were framed and came into effect on December 12. He alleged serious malfeasance in the functioning of the trust and stated that the government might have to recover misused funds. The Chief Justice pointed out that biometric data of temple employees was available and stressed that such systems must be properly utilised to ensure accountability and effective management.
Given that the term of the existing trust committee is due to end on December 31, the Supreme Court directed that the Commissioner of the Aurangabad division be appointed as the administrator of the temple trust. The court also ordered that two officials of sub-divisional magistrate rank be included in the administrative committee. This arrangement will remain in place until a new trust committee is constituted in accordance with the applicable temple trust laws. The state government has been directed to submit detailed status reports to the court.
The trust’s counsel objected to the move, arguing that the government was effectively seeking executive control over the temple. He warned that in the past, similar appointments of administrators had resulted in delays in payment of salaries and provident fund dues to employees. Responding to this concern, the Chief Justice stated that bureaucrats were being appointed precisely because they could be held accountable for their actions.
The court also questioned the sequence of events following the Bombay High Court’s December 12 order. The Chief Justice noted that the Collector acted with unusual speed in inviting the trust to take charge and questioned why sufficient time was not given to the state to approach the Supreme Court. He added that the conduct of the Collector might also require examination.
The matter has now been adjourned and is scheduled to be listed again before the Supreme Court in the third week of January.
