Sanatan Prabhat > Post Type > News > National News > Deciding who may or may not be granted access inside a temple is not the judiciary’s role : SC

Deciding who may or may not be granted access inside a temple is not the judiciary’s role : SC

Supreme Court declines to intervene in ‘VIP darshan’ at Ujjain’s Mahakaleshwar temple

New Delhi – The system of VIP and VVIP darshan at the world-renowned Shri Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, one of the twelve Jyotirlingas, will continue. The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a petition challenging the practice and categorically stated that determining who should be allowed entry into a temple is not a matter for judicial intervention. In view of the court’s clear stance, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition.

‘Genuine devotees do not file such petitions’, observes the court

Appearing for the petitioner, Darpan Awasthi, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain argued that allowing only VIPs to perform jalabhishek inside the sanctum violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. He contended that there should be a uniform policy applicable to all devotees.

The Supreme Court responded sharply, remarking that such petitions should not be filed and that genuine devotees do not approach courts on such issues. The bench further observed that, by such logic, tomorrow people may invoke the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 to demand the right to chant mantras inside temples.

Authority to decide who qualifies as ‘VIP’ lies with the temple and administration

The Supreme Court upheld the earlier ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. According to that decision, the district magistrate and the temple administration are empowered to decide, on a day-to-day basis and depending on circumstances, who qualifies as a ‘VIP’. The High Court had noted that similar arrangements exist at most religious places across the country and that there is neither a fixed list nor a rigid definition of ‘VIP’. Decisions regarding access to the sanctum are left entirely to administrative discretion.

Advocate Vishnu Jain had argued that discrimination must be eliminated and that either everyone should be allowed entry into the sanctum or no one at all. He pointed out that ordinary devotees often wait in queues for hours, while influential individuals receive unhindered access.

The court, however, reiterated that such decisions must be left to those responsible for management and administration, emphasising that not every aspect of religious or administrative functioning can or should be governed by the judiciary.

Latest Articles