Supreme Court Declines To Entertain PIL Against Special Treatment For VIPs In Temples

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a PIL challenging the practice of charging an additional fee for ‘VIP darshan’ and the preferential treatment given to certain individuals at temples.

A bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, stated that the issue was within the domain of society and temple management to address, and the court could not intervene or issue any directions.

While the bench acknowledged that they might hold the view that no special treatment should be offered, they emphasized, “This court can’t issue directions. We do not think it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.”

However, they clarified that the dismissal of the petition would not prevent the relevant authorities from taking appropriate action when necessary.

The petition, filed by Vijay Kishor Goswami, a ‘sevait’ at Shri Radha Madan Mohan Temple in Vrindavan, raised concerns about the discriminatory nature of charging a fee for expedited access to temple deities.

Advocate Akash Vashishtha, representing the petitioner, argued that the practice lacked a standardized procedure and cited the 12 Jyotirlingas as an example where the arbitrary “VIP darshan” fees were in place.

The petition argued that this practice violated the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, creating a divide between devotees who could afford the extra fee and those who could not.

It specifically highlighted the financial burden placed on disadvantaged groups, including women, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities, who were unable to pay the additional charges, which ranged between Rs 400 & Rs 500.

The petition also noted that despite representations made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, only one directive had been issued to Andhra Pradesh.

Other states, including Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, had not taken any similar action. The petitioner, therefore, sought a direction to declare the additional fee as a violation of constitutional rights and religious freedom, and urged the government to establish a standard operating procedure to ensure equal access to all devotees.

Additionally, the plea called for the creation of a national board to oversee the management and administration of temples across India.

Despite these concerns, the court declined to intervene, leaving the matter to be addressed by the concerned authorities.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International