New Delhi | May 16, 2025 — In a landmark judgment that ends a two-and-a-half-decade-old legal dispute, the Supreme Court of India on Friday ruled in favour of ISKCON-Bangalore, declaring it the rightful owner of the Hare Krishna Hill temple and its associated properties in Bengaluru. The decision effectively overrules the Karnataka High Court’s 2011 verdict, which had favoured ISKCON-Mumbai in the ownership battle.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices A.S. Oka and A.G. Masih delivered the ruling, setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s conclusions as “completely erroneous” and unsupported by evidence. The verdict brings long-awaited clarity to one of the most publicized property disputes in the Indian religious and spiritual landscape.
Background: A Two-Decade-Old Legal Battle
The dispute traces back to the late 1990s when internal differences between ISKCON’s Mumbai-based global headquarters and its Bangalore branch emerged. At the heart of the matter was the ownership of the prestigious Hare Krishna Hill property in Bengaluru, home to one of India’s largest and most visited ISKCON temples.
ISKCON-Mumbai had maintained that ISKCON-Bangalore functioned merely as a branch of the original society and therefore had no independent legal standing or property rights. ISKCON-Bangalore, led by its President and spiritual leader Kodandarama Dasa, contested this claim, asserting its status as a separately registered and independently governed society under Karnataka law.
In 2009, a Bengaluru trial court ruled in favour of ISKCON-Bangalore, affirming its ownership and legal independence. However, this decision was overturned in 2011 by the Karnataka High Court, prompting ISKCON-Bangalore to move the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court: High Court’s Reasoning “Contrary to Documentary Evidence”
Delivering the judgment, Justice A.S. Oka criticised the High Court’s reasoning as flawed and not grounded in the facts of the case.
“Even assuming that ISKCON-Bangalore did not possess the funds, and even if money came from ISKCON-Mumbai, it cannot claim ownership,” the court noted.
“Only because the existence of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON-Mumbai was proved, one cannot jump to the conclusion that allotment of the Hare Krishna Hill property was made to ISKCON-Mumbai through its Bangalore branch,” the judgment stated.
The apex court upheld the trial court’s observation that ISKCON-Bangalore had provided substantial evidence showing its legal ownership and possession of the temple premises. In contrast, ISKCON-Mumbai failed to produce any material proof that it held legal possession or ownership of the Hare Krishna Hill property.
Trial Court’s Verdict Was Detailed and Evidence-Based: SC
The Supreme Court lauded the thoroughness of the trial court’s 2009 decision, which it said was based on a comprehensive evaluation of documentary and testimonial evidence.
“The trial court recorded a finding that no evidence was produced by ISKCON-Mumbai about its possession of the temple property. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim,” the SC reiterated.
Justice Oka, who authored the judgment, further noted that ISKCON-Bangalore had been managing the temple and properties for several decades without interference and had developed them significantly during that time.
Dissolution of Apex Court Monitoring Committee
The dispute had become so contentious that the Supreme Court, in an earlier stage of the case, had formed a committee led by former SC judge Justice R.V. Raveendran to oversee temple management. With the ownership issue now conclusively resolved, the apex court on Friday ordered the dissolution of this committee within a month.
This marks a significant development as the panel had been instrumental in ensuring that temple affairs remained unaffected by the legal battle and were administered in the best interests of devotees and the public.
Implications for ISKCON-Bangalore and Devotees
For ISKCON-Bangalore, the verdict is more than a legal win — it is a spiritual and administrative vindication of its autonomy and commitment to Krishna consciousness. The temple on Hare Krishna Hill is not only a major religious site but also a centre for education, social welfare, and cultural outreach.
Speaking to media following the ruling, ISKCON-Bangalore officials expressed relief and gratitude.
“We are thankful to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for recognising our efforts and upholding the truth. This temple belongs to Lord Krishna, and we are only His servants,” said a spokesperson from ISKCON-Bangalore.
What’s Next for ISKCON-Mumbai?
The verdict is a clear setback for ISKCON-Mumbai, which had claimed legal and spiritual jurisdiction over all ISKCON centres across India, including Bengaluru. It is now expected to revisit its management and affiliation model, particularly for other ISKCON temples with local governance structures.
While ISKCON as a global movement will continue its spiritual work, the judgment has underlined the importance of local legal registration, autonomy, and governance, especially when large religious properties and institutions are involved.
Public Reaction and Broader Significance
The verdict has drawn a wide array of responses from spiritual leaders, legal experts, and devotees. While some have welcomed it as a victory for decentralised spiritual governance, others see it as a cautionary tale of how internal rifts can escalate into prolonged legal disputes.
For devotees, the most important takeaway is the assurance of uninterrupted darshan and temple services at Hare Krishna Hill. ISKCON-Bangalore has reaffirmed its commitment to serving the public through free meals (Akshaya Patra), educational programs, and daily temple rituals.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment in India’s Spiritual Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of ISKCON-Bangalore brings a long-running, deeply divisive legal battle to a decisive close. It reinforces the role of clear legal documentation, independent governance, and transparency in the management of India’s vast religious institutions.
With this judgment, the Hare Krishna Hill temple stands not just as a place of devotion but also as a symbol of judicial clarity and institutional accountability.
