Supreme Court Halts Vrindavan Construction, Warns of Yamuna Channel Shrinkage

A bench of Justices Pardiwala and Viswanathan freezes construction near Yamuna in Vrindavan and orders Bihar to clear Patna riverbank encroachments within six weeks.

The Supreme Court on 21 July 2026 directed that no further construction be undertaken near the river Yamuna in Vrindavan, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, after being informed through freshly filed interlocutory applications that ongoing construction was leading to a shrinking of the Yamuna's river channel. The two-judge bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, described the situation as “very serious” and ordered status quo until the next date of hearing. In the same sitting, the Court gave Bihar a final six weeks to demolish every unauthorised structure and encroachment along a specific Patna riverbank stretch, warning that any laxity would be viewed strictly and that its directions would override any contrary interim order of any other court.

How the Applications Came Before the Court

Civil Appeal No. 3367/2020 was already part-heard by the same bench. On 21 July 2026, two fresh interlocutory applications — I.A. No. 123901/2026 and I.A. No. 123904/2026 — were moved seeking appropriate orders and directions. The bench allowed both applications at the outset and issued notice on them, returnable on 23 September 2026. Dasti service was also permitted, and counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Mr. Rohit K. Singh, waived service of notice on behalf of that State.

The Court directed that a comprehensive report on what was stated in the interlocutory applications be placed on record by the next date of hearing. The bench called the construction activity highlighted in those applications “something very serious” and a “matter of concern.”

Vrindavan Construction and the Yamuna Channel

The Court recorded its understanding that construction activity underway near the Yamuna in Vrindavan, District Mathura, would ultimately lead to shrinkage of the river channel. The bench's stated concern was to ensure that the ecological flow of water in the Yamuna is maintained. On that basis, it imposed an immediate status quo and prohibited any further construction until the next hearing on 23 September 2026.

States Yet to File Reports; Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Added

The broader civil appeal had earlier generated a series of directions to multiple States to furnish information on river-related questions. By an order dated 12 March 2026, the Court had formulated five specific questions and requested the Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, to file a comprehensive and detailed report. When the matter came up on 23 April 2026, Ms. Bhati sought additional time, and the Court posted it for 21 July 2026 as part-heard.

On 21 July 2026, Ms. Bhati again submitted she needed more time, stating that some States had furnished information but not to her satisfaction, and that others had yet to respond at all. The Court granted one last opportunity to all States to furnish the necessary information to the Union. It made clear that, failing compliance, it would be “compelled to summon the Chief Secretary of each of those States” before the Court.

The bench also expanded the list of States from which information is required. To the earlier group of nine States, the Court added the State of Himachal Pradesh and the State of Madhya Pradesh, directing that information be called from these two States as well at the earliest.

Bihar's Patna Riverbank: Six Weeks to Remove All Encroachments

A separate and pressing strand of the case concerned encroachments along the Yamuna's banks in Patna, Bihar. By its order of 12 March 2026, the Court had noted that out of 213 identified encroachments, 58 had been demolished, while the remaining 145 remained standing — the State authorities attributing the delay to interim orders passed by the High Court and district courts. The Court had also noted a second stretch, from Nauzar Ghat to Nurpur Ghat in Patna, where hundreds of additional encroachments existed.

On 21 July 2026, the Court was informed that no steps had been taken since 12 March 2026 to remove these encroachments. The bench granted six weeks to the State of Bihar to ensure that each and every unauthorised structure, construction, and encroachment between Nauzar Ghat and Nurpur Ghat in Patna is removed. A compliance report by affidavit, filed by a competent authority, was directed to be placed on record by the next date of hearing.

Court Directions to Override Other Courts' Interim Orders

The Court directly addressed the argument that various courts had passed interim orders restraining authorities from proceeding with removal of encroachments. The bench directed that, irrespective of any such order in operation before any court, its own directions shall be fully complied with. Ms. Rebecca Mishra, counsel for Bihar, was requested by the bench to convey this order to the concerned authority on the same day.

Order

The bench on 21 July 2026 passed the following directions in Civil Appeal No. 3367/2020:

• I.A. Nos. 123901/2026 and 123904/2026 are allowed; notice issued, returnable on 23 September 2026; dasti service permitted.
• A comprehensive report on the contents of the interlocutory applications to be filed by the next date of hearing.
• Status quo maintained; no further construction near the Yamuna in Vrindavan, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, until the next hearing.
• All States granted one last opportunity to furnish information to the Union; failure will result in summoning of the Chief Secretary of the defaulting State.
• State of Himachal Pradesh and State of Madhya Pradesh added to the list of States from which information is sought.
• State of Bihar granted six weeks to remove all unauthorised structures and encroachments between Nauzar Ghat and Nurpur Ghat, Patna.
• Compliance affidavit by a competent authority to be filed by the next date of hearing; any laxity to be viewed strictly.
• Court's directions to be complied with irrespective of any contrary interim order passed by any other court.