ISKCON vs ISKCON: Supreme Court to consider setting up Bench to hear review plea on Bengaluru temple

The Supreme Court had allowed the plea of ISKCON Bangalore challenging a Karnataka High Court order that ruled in favour of ISKCON Mumbai over control of the iconic temple and educational complex in Bengaluru

Updated - August 17, 2026 02:48 pm IST - NEW DELHI

A portion of the ISKCON temple in Bengaluru. File | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 17, 2026) agreed to consider setting up a fresh Bench to hear a plea seeking review of its May 16, 2025, verdict, which held that the Hare Krishna temple in Bengaluru belonged to ISKCON Bangalore.

Also read | SC rules ISKCON-Bangalore owner of Hare Krishna hill temple

The Supreme Court had allowed the plea of ISKCON Bangalore challenging a Karnataka High Court order that ruled in favour of ISKCON Mumbai over control of the iconic temple and educational complex in Bengaluru.

Later, in November 2025, a Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari, since retired, and A.G. Masih delivered a split verdict on ISKCON Mumbai’s plea seeking a review of the Supreme Court’s May 16 judgment.

On Monday (August 17, 2026), a counsel for ISKCON Mumbai urged a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana that a fresh Bench be set up to decide the long-pending dispute.

The counsel said the review plea was earlier listed before two separate benches headed by Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Dipankar Datta.

Since then, the review plea has not been listed, he said.

“We will consider this,” the CJI said.

Also read | Hare Krishna temple in Bengaluru belongs to ISKCON Society Bengaluru: Supreme Court

On May 16, 2025, a Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, since retired, and Augustine George Masih had set aside the order of the Karnataka High Court and held that the property belonged to ISKCON Bangalore.

The Bench had said the trial court also recorded a finding that no evidence was produced by ISKCON Mumbai about its possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property and there was absolutely no evidence to support its claim.

Later, Justices Maheshwari and Masih, who were part of the Bench led by Justice Oka, delivered a split verdict on ISKCON Mumbai’s plea for review of the May 16 judgment.

Justice Maheshwari found that ISKCON Mumbai has made out a case for review of the judgment.

In his two-sentence order, he said, “Applications for listing the review petitions in open court are allowed. Notice be issued to the parties.” This would mean Justice Maheshwari felt that the Mumbai branch should be allowed to argue its case in an open court, pointing out the "error apparent" in the judgment.

On the other hand, Justice Masih said, “After having carefully gone through the review petitions, the judgment under review and the material annexed therewith, I am satisfied there is no error apparent on the face of record or any merit in the review petitions, warranting reconsideration of the judgment impugned. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”

“In view of the divergent views... The review petitions be placed before the CJI for directions and to do the needful,” the Bench had said.

ISKCON Bangalore had moved the Supreme Court on June 2, 2011, against a May 23, 2011, High Court verdict. Represented by its office-bearer Kodandarama Dasa, it contested the High Court judgment that overturned a 2009 order of a local court in Bengaluru.

The trial court had ruled in favour of ISKCON Bangalore, recognising its legal title and granting a permanent injunction against ISKCON Mumbai.

However, the High Court reversed this ruling and upheld a counterclaim by ISKCON Mumbai, effectively granting it control over the temple.

The societies with similar names and spiritual missions were pitted against each other in the legal battle.

While ISKCON Bangalore, a Karnataka-registered society, contended that it had been operating independently and managing the Bengaluru temple for decades, ISKCON Mumbai, registered under the national Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, claimed rights over the property and said ISKCON Bangalore was merely its branch.

Published - August 17, 2026 12:42 pm IST

court / Bengaluru / Mumbai

Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.