The Supreme Court of India on Friday, declined to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the practice of charging extra fees for "VIP darshan" and providing preferential treatment to certain people in temples. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, stated that the matter was best left to the temple management and society to decide, and the court could not pass any orders or intervene in the issue.
While the judges expressed their personal opinion that special treatment should not be given, they clarified that this wasn't a suitable case for the court to use its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.They further said that their decision to dismiss the petition would not prevent the relevant authorities from taking appropriate actions if needed in the future.
Advocate Akash Vashishtha, representing the petitioner said that there should be a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in place, particularly since there are 12 Jyotirlingas, and this arbitrary practice of "VIP darshan" needs to be addressed. He stressed that such practices could lead to inequality and unfair treatment.The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Vijay Kishor Goswami, a 'sevait' (caretaker) at the Shri Radha Madan Mohan Temple in Vrindavan, who raised concerns about the issue of preferential treatment being given to certain individuals for darshan at temples.
The petition pointed out that the practice of charging extra fees for "VIP darshan" violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it discriminated against devotees who couldn’t afford the fee, denying them equal access to the temple. It also raised concerns about the additional fee for expedited access to temple deities, which ranged between Rs 400 and Rs 500.
The petition said that this practice created a divide between affluent devotees and those unable to afford the charges, particularly disadvantaged women, people with disabilities, and senior citizens.Despite appeals to the home ministry, the petition noted that only Andhra Pradesh received a directive, while other states like Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh were left unaddressed.The plea sought a ruling declaring the fee unconstitutional, as it violated the rights to equality and religious freedom.
The petition sought directions to ensure equal treatment for all devotees in temple premises and called for the Centre to frame standard operating procedures to guarantee equitable access to temples.It also proposed the establishment of a national board to oversee the management and administration of temples across the country.