The Supreme Court has rejected a plea demanding that Buddhists be granted full control over the sacred Mahabodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya. Petitioner Sulekha Kumbhare was told to approach the Patna High Court instead, as Article 32 cannot be used to enforce such claims directly.
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition seeking to transfer the control and management of Bihar’s Mahabodhi Mahavira Temple in Bodh Gaya to the Buddhist community. The petitioner, former Maharashtra minister and Buddhist rights advocate Sulekha Kumbhare, had filed a plea challenging the structure and provisions of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949, which currently vests management responsibilities in a government-appointed committee.
The temple, located in the sacred town of Bodh Gaya, is believed to be the very spot where Siddhartha Gautama attained enlightenment, making it one of Buddhism’s holiest sites. Despite its significance to Buddhists around the world, the temple is jointly managed by Hindus and Buddhists under the current law, a point of long-standing contention.
The Bodh Gaya Temple Act stipulates that an eight-member committee be appointed by the Bihar state government, of which at least four must be Hindus. The District Magistrate if Hindu automatically serves as chairman, sparking criticism from Buddhist groups who argue this structure denies them the autonomy to manage their own sacred site.
The petition was rooted in concerns over alleged violations of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution under Articles 25, 26, and 29, which respectively guarantee freedom of religion, autonomy for religious denominations, and protection of minority cultures. Kumbhare argued that unless Buddhists are granted full control of the temple, their constitutional rights are being infringed upon.
This demand comes in the wake of escalating protests by Buddhist monks and laypeople. In February, monks initiated an indefinite hunger strike in Bodh Gaya. This movement gained momentum with nationwide rallies in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu, culminating in a massive protest on March 18 and 19 in Bodh Gaya itself.
However, a two-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran declined to hear the case under Article 32, which allows citizens to approach the apex court for the direct enforcement of fundamental rights. The bench instead directed the petitioner to approach the Patna High Court, ruling that the matter must first be considered at the appropriate state level before the Supreme Court can intervene.
The decision has left many Buddhists disappointed, reigniting debate around whether a religious minority should be denied sole custodianship of one of its most sacred shrines.
The Mahabodhi Temple remains one of the four most important pilgrimage sites in Buddhism, and its administrative oversight continues to raise complex questions of religious freedom, minority rights, and historical justice in a pluralistic India where Buddhism was born as a challenge to caste and ritual orthodoxy over two millennia ago.
About the Author
