The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a challenge to the practice of ‘VIP Darshan’ at the Shri Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, stating the matter is not within the Court’s purview. The petitioner, Darpan Awasthi, subsequently withdrew the petition with the option to submit a representation to relevant authorities.
Supreme Court Cites Separation of Powers
The case stemmed from a challenge to a decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had previously dismissed Awasthi’s petition concerning preferential treatment given to VIPs allowing access to the Garbhagriha (innermost sanctum) to offer water to the deity, while restricting access for the general public. A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the case.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the petitioner, argued that the practice violated Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting a need for a uniform policy regarding access to the Garbhagriha. Jain stated, “Citizens cannot be discriminated or differentiated on the basis of VIP status.” He suggested that if access is granted based on recommendation from a collector, all devotees should have the same right to enter and offer water.
Chief Justice Kant responded that determining whether or not to allow such practices is not the role of the Court. He observed, “If Courts start regulating who should be allowed to enter or who should not be, it’s too much for the Courts…” The CJI also raised concerns that upholding a right to enter the sanctum could lead to claims of other fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of speech and expression, within the sacred space.
Jain clarified that his argument centered on the discriminatory nature of selective permissions, advocating for either a complete prohibition or universal access. However, the Court remained unpersuaded and the petitioner chose to withdraw the case.
The Court recorded that the petitioner is permitted to submit suggestions or recommendations to the appropriate authorities. The High Court had previously noted that the temple’s Managing Committee minutes showed no explicit prohibition against entering the Garbhagriha, and that VIP access was granted at the discretion of the Collector and Administrator.
The High Court further stated that the definition of “VIP” is not established in any law or rule, and that anyone granted permission by the competent authority may be considered a VIP for a specific time. The court dismissed the petition, stating it was not maintainable as the petitioner was a “personal aggrieved person.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the original petition challenging?
The petition challenged the practice of ‘VIP Darshan’ at the Shri Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, arguing that it discriminated against the general public by granting preferential access to the Garbhagriha to individuals deemed ‘VIPs.’
Why did the Supreme Court refuse to hear the case?
The Supreme Court stated that the matter was not within its jurisdiction to decide, asserting that regulating access to religious sites is a matter for those “at the helm of affairs,” not the courts.
What happens now that the petition has been withdrawn?
The petitioner, Darpan Awasthi, has the liberty to submit suggestions or recommendations to the competent authority regarding the practice of VIP Darshan.
As the Court’s decision leaves the current system in place, will this outcome prompt further debate about equitable access to religious sites in India?
