New Delhi- In an in-depth interview with a news channel, former judge and Indian Dalit Forum founder Sanjeev Kumar expressed cautious skepticism about the Buddhist community's expectations from the Supreme Court's upcoming final hearing on October 30 regarding the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949.

With Buddhist monks and nuns on a six-month hunger strike at the Mahabodhi Mahavihara in Gaya, demanding liberation of the temple from Hindu-majority control, Kumar emphasized that the 13-year delay in the case is not a conspiracy but a symptom of systemic judicial overburdening.

He explained that the Supreme Court’s hearing dates are set by a computerized registry system, and attempts to influence scheduling are deemed unethical. Cases often remain unheard if lower on the daily list, as seen with adjournments from July 29 to August 5, due to the sheer volume of cases outstripping judicial capacity.

Kumar, leveraging his judicial experience, highlighted the acute shortage of judges, only 34 in the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of India, serving a 150-crore population. With judges sitting in benches of two, three, or five, effectively only 17 courts operate, making timely hearings challenging. He called for judicial reforms to ensure prompt hearings and increase judge numbers, noting that new laws and amendments from Parliament and state assemblies further burden courts. Dismissing notions of targeted delays, Kumar stressed that such adjournments are routine across high courts and the Supreme Court, urging a strategic approach over conspiracy theories.

On the petition challenging the 1949 Act, Kumar acknowledged the Buddhist community's valid concerns, asserting that a Buddhist temple like Mahabodhi should be managed solely by Buddhists. The Act mandates an eight-member committee with four Hindus and four Buddhists, chaired by a Hindu District Magistrate (DM) or a government-appointed Hindu, giving Hindus a majority (five out of nine).

Kumar questioned the historical reasoning behind this structure, passed by the Bihar Legislative Assembly when Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was a central minister, suggesting a need to study 1949 legislative debates to uncover why Hindu control was prioritized. He noted Section 11 of the Act, which allows Hindus and Buddhists of all sects access to the temple and its lands for worship and pinddaan, prohibiting only animal sacrifice, alcohol, and footwear. Kumar found it puzzling that pinddaan, contrary to Buddhist teachings, was permitted, calling for further investigation into the Act’s objectives.

Despite supporting the Buddhist demand for exclusive management, arguing that Hindu dominance in a Buddhist temple’s committee is unjust, even if entry for worship is allowed, Kumar cautioned against over-relying on the Buddhist Chief Justice,BR Gavai, an Ambedkarite known for rational views. He stressed that judicial decisions must align with constitutional principles, not personal or religious affiliations, and that the Act carries a presumption of validity.

Petitioners must prove constitutional violations, a challenging task. Kumar referenced the Ram Mandir case, where government support swayed the outcome, but noted no similar backing from the central or Bihar governments here, despite Prime Minister Modi’s past claims of India as Buddha’s land. He observed Modi’s recent focus on gifting Hindu icons like Krishna and Ram statues abroad, suggesting limited political will to favor Buddhists.

Kumar, while empathetic to the Buddhist movement, avoided predicting the case’s outcome, not having reviewed the petition’s grounds. Based on public information, he expressed no strong belief that the Act would be struck down, as it was deliberately enacted in 1949 with specific reasoning.

With cases pending for decades in the Supreme Court, he saw no special provisions for expediting this one, despite its significance involving Hindu and Buddhist rights. Kumar advocated for historical analysis to clarify the Act’s intent and reiterated his commitment to judicial reforms for faster justice, framing the issue within broader systemic challenges rather than isolated bias.

The BT Act Petition in Supreme Court

The movement to repeal the 1949 Act, often referred to as the Mahabodhi Mahavihar Mukti Andolan, seeks to transfer full administrative control of the temple to the Buddhist community. The campaign traces its roots to the late 19th century, when Ven. Bhante Anagarika Dhammapala initiated efforts to restore Buddhist control over the temple, which had been under non-Buddhist management since the 16th century.

In 2012, Buddhist monks Bhante Arya Nagarjun Shurai Sasai and Gajendra Mahanand Pantawane filed a writ petition (Civil No. 0380 of 2012) in the Supreme Court, challenging the Act’s provisions and seeking exclusive Buddhist management of the temple. Despite its significance, the petition remained unheard for over a decade, prompting Buddhist monks to undertake hunger strikes to draw attention to the issue.

On February 12, 2025, the All India Buddhist Forum launched an indefinite relay hunger strike, now over 185 days, highlighting the life-threatening condition of the protesting monks. Advocate Anand S. Jondhale, President of the Buddhist International Forum for Peace, filed an intervention plea emphasizing the urgency of the situation, noting that the monks’ health was deteriorating and that further delays could endanger their lives.

Speaking with The Mooknayak, Advocate Jondhale said that during a hearing on May 16, Justices Dipankar Datta and Prasanna B. Varale expressed frustration with the government’s inaction, criticizing advocates for the prolonged delay in addressing the 2012 petition. The court’s decided to schedule the final hearing for July 29, with a strict no-adjournment directive, however the case wasnt listed on the given date. Next it was heard on August 5. Jondhale submitted that hundreds of monks are on hunger strike for the demand which is the subject matter of the present petition elevated 13 years ago. He requested for a fixed date to which Justice Suryakant granted hearing on October 30 , also assuring that it would be the final hearing only.