New Delhi, June 30, 2025
In a significant development concerning religious and heritage rights, the Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to entertain a plea seeking exclusive handover of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara (Mahabodhi Temple), located in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, to the Buddhist community.
The petition was filed by Buddhist groups challenging the current governance structure of the Mahabodhi Temple, which is managed jointly by Hindu and Buddhist representatives under the Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) as per the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949.
What the Supreme Court Said:
A Vacation Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to intervene directly in the matter. The Court stated:
“We are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32. You may approach the jurisdictional High Court with your grievance,” the bench observed.
The Court made it clear that the petitioner’s concerns — regarding the alleged disproportionate control of Hindu members in the temple’s management — do not warrant direct intervention under Article 32 (constitutional remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights), but can be more suitably addressed by the Patna High Court, which holds territorial jurisdiction.
Background of the Dispute:
The Mahabodhi Temple, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, holds immense significance for Buddhists as it is believed to be the site where Gautama Buddha attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree.
However, under the current framework of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, the temple’s management committee must be headed by a Hindu, with a fixed number of Buddhist representatives included. This has long been contested by Buddhist groups, who argue that the temple should be under the exclusive administration of the Buddhist community.
The petitioner in this case sought to declare the management provisions of the 1949 Act unconstitutional, claiming it violated their religious rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to manage religious affairs.
Legal Position:
• The Supreme Court’s refusal does not amount to dismissal on merits.
• The petitioners have been granted liberty to file a writ petition before the Patna High Court, where detailed facts and legal arguments can be examined.
• The matter touches upon sensitive constitutional issues — including minority religious rights, heritage preservation, and state regulation of religious institutions.
