New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list for hearing a plea seeking a review of its May 16, 2025, verdict, which held that the Hare Krishna temple in Bengaluru belonged to ISKCON Bengaluru.
The CJI said the review plea along with other interim pleas will be listed for hearing before a bench a week after October 5. Earlier reporting noted: SC agrees to examine plea against acquittal of 22 accused in Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s order acquitting 22 accused, including 21 police personnel, in the 2005 alleged fake encounter case involving gangster Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and his aide Tulsiram Prajapati. Earlier reporting noted: A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on the plea filed by Nayabuddin Shaikh, brother of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, challenging the May 7 judgment of the Bombay High Court that upheld the acquittal of the accused. Earlier reporting noted: Justice Bagchi observed that the fact that 92 prosecution witnesses had turned hostile was a matter requiring consideration, particularly in assessing whether the trial had been fair and just.
The top court had earlier allowed the plea of ISKCON Bengaluru challenging a Karnataka High Court order that ruled in favour of ISKCON Mumbai over control of the iconic temple and educational complex in Bengaluru.
Notice be issued to the parties. 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 top court’s May 16 judgment. On May 16, 2025, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, since retired, and Justice Masih had set aside the order of the Karnataka High Court and held that the property belonged to ISKCON Bengaluru.
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. In his two-sentence order, he said, “Applications for listing the review petitions in open court are allowed. 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.
