The short answer on the Modi temple Bihar government response is this: as of 24 October 2026, we have found no public statement about the Patna temple plan from the Bihar government, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Narendra Modi himself or the BJP. The only claims about government support come from Rajan Singh, the board member who made the proposal. This page lists what is on record, what is only a claim, and what is still missing.
Key takeaways
- No government, PMO or BJP statement on the temple was found in the news reports we opened, up to 24 October 2026.
- Claims that the Chief Minister supports the plan, and that the state "welcomed" it, come from Rajan Singh. No report confirms them independently.
- Singh says the proposal will go to the Cabinet Secretariat. We found no report that it has been sent or discussed.
- The Press Club of India, a private body, did respond. It said it did not organise the 20 August "Modi Chalisa" event and issued show-cause notices.
- This is a short page on purpose. We will update it when something official appears.
What was the proposal, in brief?
On 29 July 2026, the Bihar State Transgender Welfare Board held its first meeting at the Social Welfare Department in the Old Secretariat, Patna. According to a PTI report carried by ThePrint, board member Rajan Singh (PTI spells the first name "Ranjan") proposed a temple for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He said the community did not have a temple of its own and that Modi "gave us respect and rights". PTI quotes Singh: "The proposal received the support of all members and was approved by the board." The report gives no vote count, so that rests on his word, and one board member disputes it (see below). Our main explainer on the Patna proposal covers the full story.
The board is part of the state's Social Welfare Department. Drishti IAS reports that it has 28 members and was set up in August 2025. That matters here. A board inside a government department is not the same as the government itself deciding something. Passing a proposal at a board meeting is one step. A decision by the state cabinet, with money and land attached, is a much bigger one.
Has the Bihar government said anything?
We found no statement from the Bihar government, the Chief Minister's office or the Social Welfare Department about the temple. We checked the reports from PTI (via ThePrint), Free Press Journal, Drishti IAS, ETV Bharat and PatnaPress. None quotes an official reaction. The Free Press Journal report, for example, carries only the board's decision and Singh's words, with no government statement.
The Free Press Journal reported that Singh said the state government would identify the land and pay for construction. That is what Singh said. It is not a government announcement. No report we opened names a plot, a department order or an amount sanctioned.
What does Rajan Singh say the government has done?
This is the part that is easy to mix up. Singh has made several statements about the government's position. Each one is his own claim.
| Claim | Who made it | Source | Independently confirmed? |
|---|---|---|---|
| The state government will find land and pay for building | Rajan Singh | Free Press Journal, 29 July 2026 | No |
| The board asked for five acres and Rs 112 crore | Rajan Singh | ETV Bharat, 11 August 2026 | No. Only his statement |
| The proposal will go to the Cabinet Secretariat | Rajan Singh | ETV Bharat and PatnaPress, 11 August 2026 | No |
| Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary supports the plan | Rajan Singh | ETV Bharat and PatnaPress, 11 August 2026 | No. PatnaPress presents it as Singh's account, not an official statement |
| Whole board backed the idea | Rajan Singh | PTI, 29 July 2026 | Disputed in one report (see below) |
PatnaPress, on 11 August, described the temple as "not yet a sanctioned project" and said it still has to go through the state government's decision process. It also noted that the pictures used with the story were AI-generated illustrations. You can read more about the money figures in our Rs 112 crore fact check.
What is the Cabinet Secretariat, and why does it matter?
The Cabinet Secretariat is a government office that deals with the papers of the ministers' council. Singh told ETV Bharat: "Now this proposal will go to the Cabinet Secretariat." PatnaPress, in the same week, said the plan still has to pass through the state government's decision process. Both describe a future step, not something done.
We did not find any news that a file was sent, that a minister took it up, or that it reached a cabinet agenda. Singh does not say whether he means the state office or the one in Delhi, and we are not guessing. Until a department confirms a step, there is nothing official to report.
Has the PMO or the BJP responded?
No. Navbharat Live, on 1 August, noted that the PMO had not responded. Since then, we have found no PMO, BJP or Modi statement in any report we opened. Queerbeat's report of 21 August on the Press Club event also carries no reaction from the BJP, the government or the PMO. Singh also told Queerbeat that there is no BJP affiliation.
| Who | Reaction found on the temple plan | Where we looked |
|---|---|---|
| Bihar government, Chief Minister, Social Welfare Department | None | PTI, Free Press Journal, Drishti IAS, ETV Bharat, PatnaPress |
| Prime Minister's Office and Narendra Modi | None. Navbharat Live noted on 1 August that the PMO had not responded | Navbharat Live, Queerbeat |
| BJP | None | Queerbeat, Wire |
| Press Club of India | Yes, about the 20 August event only | The Wire, Queerbeat |
Past cases show that Modi and his party have reacted before when people built temples in his name. In 2015, after followers in Rajkot built a Modi temple, reports say Modi said he was "appalled". In 2021 in Pune, the idol was removed after local BJP leaders objected, according to Punekar News. Those are other cases, and they do not tell us what will happen in Patna. We cover them in our guides to the Rajkot temple and the Pune temple. The absence of a statement today is not a sign of approval or of objection.
What did the Press Club of India say?
This is the one clear institutional response on record, though it is not from a government body. On 20 August 2026, Singh, described by PTI as vice-president of the board, held a reading of a "Modi Chalisa" in front of a Modi cutout at the Press Club of India in Delhi. Singh told PTI the plan is a Rs 112 crore temple on five acres in Bihar.
The Press Club said it had not organised the event. It said the hall had been booked for a press conference, the booking terms were broken, and the event was stopped. In a statement of 22 August, reported by The Wire, club president Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty said no permission had been given, show-cause notices had been issued and the booking rules were under review. A show-cause notice is a written request to explain your actions. Our page on what happened at the Press Club has the full account.
Two points are worth keeping clear. First, the Press Club is not a government body. Second, the statements we saw are about the event in its hall, not about the temple plan itself.
What have other people said about it?
Not all responses come from officials. Some come from inside the community and from commentators.
- A board member disputes Singh. Queerbeat reported on 21 August that board member Anupriya Singh called the temple Rajan Singh's personal agenda. The same report says the minutes of the 29 July meeting that Queerbeat saw do not mention the temple. We have not seen the minutes ourselves, so treat this as one outlet's account.
- A complaint to the PMO. Queerbeat also reported that a lawyer, Prashant Kumar, filed a complaint with the PMO on 14 August. It asks for an inquiry into whether Singh used Modi's name and photo to suggest government backing. We have not seen the complaint, and we found no reply from the PMO.
- Opinion writers. In an opinion piece on 7 August, Sanskriti Pandey argued that a separate shrine "creates a ghetto". The Wire ran a piece with the headline asking what about protecting trans rights. We have not quoted its body. These are opinions, and they are one side. Singh's own reason, as PTI reports, is that the community has no temple of its own and that Modi "gave us respect and rights".
For what the political parties have and have not said, see our separate page on political party positions. We keep the two pages apart so that each stays short and accurate.
What we do not know yet
As of 24 October 2026, we found no report of any of the following:
- A statement from the Bihar government, the Chief Minister or the Social Welfare Department on the temple.
- A statement from the PMO, Narendra Modi or the BJP.
- Land being identified or given for the temple.
- Money being approved from the state budget.
- A cabinet discussion or decision.
- A court case about this temple.
- A trust, architect or design for the temple.
If you see a news report of any of these, please send us the link through our contact page. We will check it before we add it. We have also seen online posts that give detailed budgets, trusts and building schedules. We found no credible source for them, and we have not repeated them.
Why would the government's answer matter?
Three questions depend on it. The first is money. If public funds were used, the Constitution's Article 27, which stops people being forced to pay taxes for one religion, could become part of the debate. No court has ruled on the Patna case, and this is general information, not legal advice. Our guide to building a temple for a living person explains the law in plain words.
The second is land. A temple needs a site, and public land needs a formal order. The third is the board's own standing. Whether a proposal passed at one meeting speaks for the board, or for the state, is exactly what an official statement would settle. You can follow the dates in our project timeline and the wider politics and reaction topic page.
Common questions
Has the Bihar government approved the Modi temple?
We found no report that it has. The board approved the proposal on 29 July 2026. The state government has not been reported as approving it, giving land or sanctioning money.
Has the PMO or Narendra Modi commented?
Not in any report we opened. Navbharat Live noted on 1 August that the PMO had not responded, and we have found nothing since.
Does the Chief Minister support the plan?
Only Rajan Singh says so. ETV Bharat and PatnaPress report his claim, and we found no statement from the Chief Minister himself.
Was the proposal sent to the Cabinet Secretariat?
Singh said on 11 August that it will go there. We found no report that this has happened.
Sources
- PTI via ThePrint, 29 July 2026: Bihar transgender board approves proposal for temple in Modi's name
- Free Press Journal, 29 July 2026: Bihar's Transgender Welfare Board approves construction of temple dedicated to Modi
- Drishti IAS, 31 July 2026: Bihar Transgender Welfare Board clears proposal for PM Modi temple
- ETV Bharat, 11 August 2026: Bihar Kinnar Board proposes to build temple for Modi
- PatnaPress, 11 August 2026: Golden Modi temple proposal
- Navbharat Live, 1 August 2026: Kinnar Kalyan Board approval of the Modi temple (in Hindi)
- Queerbeat, 21 August 2026: A Bihar Transgender Welfare Board member hosts a Modi Chalisa at the Press Club of India
- The Wire, 22 August 2026: Modi Chalisa event hall was booked for press conference, says Press Club of India
Last checked on 24 October 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us through our contact page.