Spaster to the Yogi government ... Former Supreme Court judges will see that banks have imposed Bihari Temple case, SC interim ban on the ordinance -the Supreme Court proposes the interim committee to manage Bankey Bihari Temple

The Supreme Court on Friday made it clear that it would form a committee that was watching by the retired judge of the Supreme Court led by the interim management and administration of the banks Bihari Temple. Apart from the officials of the administration and local authorities, it will also include the Sevayat and Goswami of the temple. This committee will not only see the management of the temple, but will also see the work of surrounding development. Jagran Bureau, New -Delhi. The Supreme Court on Friday made it clear that it would form a committee that was watching by the retired judge of the Supreme Court led by the interim management and administration of the banks Bihari Temple. Apart from the officials of the administration and local authorities, it will also include the Sevayat and Goswami of the temple. This committee will not only see the management of the temple, but will also see the work of surrounding development. The committee will look at the development work of the temple, the peak court said it will send the matter to challenge the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh government ordinance. Until the Supreme Court ruled the case, the operation of the committee will be postponed in terms of the Ordinance. The committee will make up a retired judge chaired by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court also indicated to withdraw its May 15 order, in which the Uttar Pradesh government was allowed to use the temple money in the construction of the banks Bihari Temple. However, the committee that will set up the Supreme Court can make the decision or spend the temple money for the surrounding development. The Bank of Justices Suryakant and Joyamalya Baghchi indicated to adjust such an order on Friday, saying that the order could probably be loaded on the Supreme Court’s website on Saturday. The court immediately relieved the development works for the temple and its surrounding development work during the hearing that the interim committee would get the rights to the court so that the committee could consider different aspects. The court said that if there is a need for immediate relief for the developmental works in the temple and its environment, the committee will be authorized for it. The parties can place their point before the committee. The apex court heard several petitions, including a petition submitted by lawyer Tanvi Dubey on behalf of the Management Committee of Thakur Shri Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple in Mathura, which challenged the ordinance in which the control of the temple administration was assigned to the state. Earlier, the Point Court questioned the excessive rabbit of the Uttar Pradesh government in the issuance of the Ordinance on Shri Banks Bihari Temple Trust, 2025 to manage the temple. The Uttar Pradesh -Ordinance, 2025, is said to offer the administration of the temple a statutory ‘Shri Banks Bihari Ji Temple Trust’. The Allahabad High Court, during the hearing of some critical remarks against the ordinance on Friday, appeared additional attorney general on behalf of the State Government, said the Allahabad High Court recently passed the order and made some critical remarks against the ordinance. The Point Court then canceled the orders of July 21 and August 6 of the single Bank of the Supreme Court and asked the High Court Chief Justice to list the case that disputed the law before a bank for an effective decision. The Allahabad High Court said the state is committing a sin, on August 6, the Allahabad High Court, while hearing the pill, criticized the Uttar Pradesh government’s attempt to effect an ordinance, saying that the state is committing a sin. The Supreme Court said at this remark that what kind of unreasonable language uses the Supreme Court? What is all this? Was the Supreme Court not informed that the Supreme Court is considering the case? ‘In the present case, a single judge approved the order. Justice Kant further said that petitions that disputed the constitutional validity of any law are always listed before the bank, but in the present case, the single judge accepted the order.