The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the decision to allow VIPs into the sanctum sanctorum of the Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain lies entirely with the temple administration.
The court refused to interfere, stating that no law defines who qualifies as a “VIP.”
The order was passed on August 28 by a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi, while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Darpan Awasthi, a resident of Indore.
Petitioner Alleged Discrimination
Awasthi argued that some “so-called VIPs” were being allowed to offer water directly to the deity inside the garbhagriha (sanctum sanctorum), while ordinary devotees were denied entry. He claimed this amounted to discrimination and arbitrary action on the part of the temple administration.
The bench, however, held that the temple’s Collector and Administrator have the discretion to grant or deny entry. Referring to documents from the temple’s Managing Committee, the judges noted there is no specific ban on entering the sanctum.
In its ruling, the court observed, “The VIPs can enter in the garbhagriha with the permission of Collector and Administrator of Management Committee of Mahakaleshwar Mandir. Therefore, who is VIP in the opinion of Collector and Administrator of Mahakaleshwar cannot be decided in a writ petition, which is purely a discretion of the competent authority.”
The judges added that on any given day, the Collector has the authority to recognize someone as a VIP based on their standing. “There is no permanent list or protocol published by the Managing Committee of the VIPs,” the bench clarified.
No Legal Definition Of “VIP”
Highlighting the absence of any statutory framework, the court remarked that “VIP” is not defined in any law or rule. Therefore, anyone permitted by the competent authority at a particular time may be treated as a VIP.
The order further stated, “This is the system applicable in all the religious places in India.”
Petition Not In Public Interest
The court also questioned the intent of the PIL, noting that the petitioner appeared to be personally aggrieved rather than representing broader public interest. On this ground, too, the plea was held not maintainable.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
