The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition seeking exclusive Buddhist management of the Mahabodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, directing the petitioner to approach the relevant high court instead.
The petition, filed by lawyer and former Maharashtra minister Sulekha Narayan Kumbhare, challenged the constitutional validity of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949. This Act entrusts the temple’s management to a nine-member committee, a majority of whom are Hindus.
A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the plea, stating, “How can we issue mandamus? You please approach the high court. This is not maintainable under Article 32.”
The petitioner argued that the Act violates the constitutional rights of Buddhists to practice and manage their religion and religious institutions. The petition specifically stated:
“Inclusion of members in the committee who are non-Buddhists, i.e., Hindus, is violative of protections guaranteed to Buddhist citizens of India and Lord Buddha himself under Articles 19, 21, 25, 26, 28, and 29 of the Constitution.”
Senior advocate Ravindra Laxman Khapre supported the plea, citing findings from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) indicating that the sacred Bodhi tree at the temple site is at risk of decay due to mismanagement and neglect by the current administrative body.
The bench reiterated that it would not entertain the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to raise these concerns before the high court:
“We are not inclined to entertain the petition. Liberty is granted to approach the high court.”
Advocate Jaydip Pati, also representing the petitioner, emphasized that the Mahabodhi Temple is the holiest shrine for Buddhists in India and has held the status of a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2002. Yet, it remains under the control of a body that does not provide exclusive Buddhist oversight.
Although the legal definition of “Hindu” includes Buddhists, the Buddhist community was recognized as a minority in India under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, in the year 1993.
The petition further noted:
“Though Buddhists are defined as part of Hindus, their independent right to profess their religion is also recognized. This recognition, therefore, confers on Buddhists the right to practice their faith according to their own beliefs.”
The petitioner also claimed that the land surrounding the temple, currently managed by the Bodh Gaya Temple Committee, was historically under the possession of Lord Buddha. The plea argued that “the idol of Lord Buddha is, in effect, the owner of the land,” and submitted that ownership of the site is vested in Lord Buddha as a juristic person.
