The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a plea asking for sole management of the Mahabodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya by the Buddhist community on procedural grounds and directed the petitioner to file the matter in the proper High Court.
A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing on a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by Sulekhatai Nalinitai Narayanrao Kumbhare, a social activist Buddhist, who challenged the constitutional validity of the Bodh Gaya Temple Management Act, 1949, that regulates the temple administration.
The petitioner argued that the Act infringes on the religious and cultural rights of Buddhists by opening up to Hindus shared control of a place which is one of the most sacred in Buddhism. In the existing law, the nine-man temple management committee has four Hindu members, four Buddhists, and is led by the Gaya District Magistrate who is always a Hindu by tradition.
The petition contended that this agreement violates the rights enshrined under Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution that uphold religious freedom and minority cultural rights.
But the bench refused to consider the plea, observing that the Supreme Court is not the proper forum to directly redress such complaints under Article 32. It instead asked the petitioner to approach the Patna High Court, which has territorial jurisdiction over Bodh Gaya and the enactments statute.
Background
The Mahabodhi Temple, a UNESCO world heritage site, is where Gautama Buddha is said to have achieved enlightenment. While it is a sacred Buddhist location, its administrative jurisdiction has been the subject of political and legal dispute for decades.
The demands for revising the Bodh Gaya Temple Act have increased in the past few months. Buddhist monks and activist groups organized demonstrations and hunger strikes, seeking exclusive management authority over the temple. In April 2025, ex-Union Minister Upendra Kushwaha also demanded law amendment to reclaim Buddhist independence over the shrine.
What Lies Ahead
The Supreme Court declining to step in directly, the judicial battle will now move to the Patna High Court. There, the petitioner will approach the court with a new case. Any change to the 1949 Act, however, will ultimately need to be done by either the Bihar State Legislature or Parliament, depending upon the legal path taken.
