Last Updated:
In the legal dispute over the ownership of the Bengaluru temple between ISKCON Mumbai and ISKCON Bengaluru, the Supreme Court, fed up with several rounds of litigation, asked what Lord Krishna would be thinking about all this. The court is hearing a review petition. The Mumbai side is claiming the temple as its parent organization while the Bengaluru ISKCON calls itself an independent entity. The court has issued notice and fixed the next hearing of the case in January. Sibal is fighting the case of Mumbai ISKCON.
Recently, a case came to light in the country’s largest court, the Supreme Court, which troubled even the judges. The matter is related to ISKCON but it is not a matter of religion or belief but of ownership of property. This legal battle between ISKCON’s Mumbai unit and Bengaluru unit has been going on for years, under which both the parties are presenting their claims on the Hare Krishna Temple of Bengaluru. During the hearing of the case, the bench of Justices MM Sundaresh, Satish Chandra Sharma and PK Mishra, while commenting on the recurring cases, said in a light-hearted manner, “What would Lord Krishna be thinking about this?” Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal is fighting the case on behalf of Mumbai ISKCON. He declared the temple as his client.
War over ownership rights of Bengaluru temple
This entire dispute is about the ownership rights of Hare Krishna Temple in Bengaluru. In the ISKCON Mumbai vs ISKCON Bengaluru case, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court was hearing the review petition filed by Mumbai ISKCON. These petitions have been filed to review the May 2025 judgment of the apex court which had declared ISKCON Bengaluru as an independent legal entity and the owner of the temple.
entanglement of court decisions
In the judgment passed on May 16, the court had clarified that ISKCON Bengaluru is a separate legal entity under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The court also acknowledged that this is not just a branch of Mumbai ISKCON. The court upheld the decision of the trial court while canceling the 2011 decision of the Karnataka High Court which had come in favor of Mumbai ISKCON.
Difference of benches and hearing
Unhappy with this decision, ISKCON Mumbai again approached the Supreme Court and filed a review petition. A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice AG Masih gave a divided verdict on this on November 8 last month. Justice Masih rejected the petitions while Justice Maheshwari accepted them. Due to this difference of opinion, the case was referred to the Chief Justice who constituted a new three-judge bench for the hearing.
It’s ours, they took it: Sibal
During the hearing on December 3, Mumbai ISKCON’s lawyer argued that many judicial approvals were not taken into account in the previous decision. He claimed that Mumbai ISKCON was a parent organization and Bengaluru ISKCON was only its subsidiary, hence he could not claim ownership of the temple. At the same time, the lawyer of Bengaluru ISKCON said that they have started the Akshaya Patra scheme and two billion meals are being served. Meanwhile, senior Mumbai side lawyer Kapil Sibal intervened and said, “Bengaluru ISKCON has taken something which is ours.” At the end of the hearing, the bench said in a humorous tone, “Apparently, both the parties also feel that nothing is theirs but everything belongs to Lord Krishna.” The court issued notice to the defendants and fixed the next hearing for the third week of January.
