The Supreme Court rejected a PIL aimed at addressing the preferential treatment of VIPs in temples

Arts & Living Current news India Life Style News Spiritual Temple

The Supreme Court, on Friday, chose not to consider a Public Interest Litigation that questioned the legitimacy of imposing an extra fee for “VIP darshan” and the preferential treatment afforded to certain individuals within temples. A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar expressed that such matters should be resolved by societal norms and the management of temples, indicating that judicial intervention was not appropriate in this context. They noted, “Although we may believe that special treatment should not be granted, this court lacks the authority to issue directives. We do not find this case suitable for exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.” Nevertheless, the bench emphasized that the rejection of the petition does not hinder the relevant authorities from taking necessary actions.The petition submitted by Vijay Kishor Goswami, a temple servant at Shri Radha Madan Mohan Temple in Vrindavan, expressed significant concerns regarding the arbitrary implementation of the “VIP darshan” system at the twelve Jyotirlingas. Advocate Akash Vashishtha, who represented the petitioner, asserted the necessity for a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to govern this practice.

The petition argued that imposing an additional fee for quicker access to the temple deities contravened the principles of equality as outlined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It emphasized that this practice unfairly discriminated against devotees who lacked the financial means to pay the fee, particularly affecting marginalized groups such as women, individuals with disabilities, and senior citizens. Furthermore, the petition noted that the fees, which ranged from Rs 400 to Rs 500 for special darshan privileges, fostered a disparity between the wealthy and those who could not afford to pay. The petition further emphasized that, despite appeals made to the home ministry, only the state of Andhra Pradesh had taken action by issuing a directive on the matter, while other states, including Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, had failed to respond. The petitioner urged the court to recognize the additional fee as a breach of constitutional rights, particularly the rights to equality and religious freedom. Moreover, the petition advocated for the development of standard operating procedures by the central government to guarantee that all devotees have equal access to temple services and suggested the creation of a national board to oversee the management and administration of temples throughout India. Nevertheless, the court rejected the petition, asserting that it did not constitute a suitable case for judicial intervention.