After more than two decades of litigation, the Supreme Court decreed the Hare Krishna Hill temple to ISKCON Bangalore. The key findings, in the Court’s own words — and every question the case has raised, answered from the record.
01
After more than two decades of litigation, a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered a 56-page judgment (2025 INSC 717). It restored the Trial Court’s 2009 decree — the Hare Krishna Hill temple and properties belong to ISKCON Bangalore, an independent society registered in Karnataka in 1978.
Key findings, in the Court’s words
“…it is crystal clear that Schedule ‘A’ property was allotted by the BDA to ISKCON Bangalore, and ISKCON Bangalore is an independent society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act.”
“In fact, the words ‘Bangalore Branch’ are not found in any of the material documents. On the contrary, all the documents, from the application for allotment to the grant of exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, indicate that the application for allotment was made on behalf of ISKCON Bangalore and that allotment was made to the said Society.”
“Even assuming that ISKCON Bangalore did not possess funds, and even if money came from ISKCON Mumbai, it cannot claim ownership.”
“While going into the question whether the allotment was to ISKCON Mumbai in the name of the Bangalore branch, the High Court has recorded findings against various individuals which were not warranted at all.”
“We may note here that plaintiffs have adduced no evidence to prove their case… After having perused the pleadings and evidence on record, we find no error in the view taken by the Trial Court as well as the High Court.”
The Court also quashed the FIR against the ISKCON Bangalore leadership and declined to proceed with contempt, observing that the dispute “ought not to have been brought to the Court” at all (¶71).
02
Every question the case has raised, answered from the court record and public documents — each with its paragraph number, so nothing here rests on our say-so.
ISKCON Bangalore. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s 2009 decree: the temple and properties belong to ISKCON Bangalore, an independent society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act in 1978 (reg. 49/78-79). The judgment is in force today.
¶57 · verify
The allotment application of February 5, 1987 was made by ISKCON Bangalore, with its Karnataka registration certificate enclosed. The sale deed of August 3, 1988 was executed in favour of ISKCON Bangalore. The Court found the words “Bangalore Branch” in none of the material documents, and no rival application on record.
¶¶47, 50, 51, 54 · verify
Yes, per three courts. The Trial Court examined the certified proceedings (Exh. D-1/D-13) and the meeting notice of May 25, 1984 (Exh. D-9); the challenge produced no evidence. The Supreme Court found “no error” in that view.
¶¶68–70 · verify
The Supreme Court held the High Court’s findings against individuals “were not warranted at all,” found its discussion of alleged manipulations “not relevant at all,” drew an adverse inference from the failure to examine the material witness — and quashed the FIR against the ISKCON Bangalore leadership.
¶¶46, 57, 58, 71 · verify
No. The Court answered directly: “Even assuming that ISKCON Bangalore did not possess funds, and even if money came from ISKCON Mumbai, it cannot claim ownership.”
¶55 · verify
The Akshaya Patra Foundation is an independent charitable trust (Indian Trusts Act, 1882; Reg. No. 154). Its trust deed of October 16, 2001 names ISKCON Bangalore as settlor, represented by its President, Sri Madhu Pandit Dasa — the Foundation’s Founder-Chairman. The legal dispute began in 2000, before Akshaya Patra existed.
Trust deed · 16.10.2001 · view the deed
Yes. Both societies — Mumbai (1971) and Bangalore (1978) — are registered as “International Society for Krishna Consciousness,” as the Supreme Court’s own cause title shows; the Court held ISKCON Bangalore is “an independent society.”
¶57 · verify
