Supreme Court rejects PIL against VIP darshan fees in temples
The Supreme Court stated it cannot intervene in temple management decisions regarding VIP darshan practices
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL against the practice of charging an additional fee for "VIP darshan" and according of “preferential, selective and special treatment” to a certain class of people in temples.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said it was for the society and temple management to decide the issue and the court cannot pass any direction.
"While we may be of the opinion that no special treatment should be given but this court cannot issue directions. We do not think it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, we clarify that dismissal of the petition will not bar the appropriate authorities from taking appropriate action as required," the bench said.
Also read: Supreme Court relaxes rules for High Courts to appoint ad-hoc judges
Advocate Akash Vashishtha, representing the petitioner, argued there is some Standard Operating Procedure required as there are 12 Jyotirlingas and this completely arbitrary practice of "VIP darshan".
The top court was hearing a plea filed by Vijay Kishor Goswami, 'sevait' at Shri Radha Madan Mohan Temple in Vrindavan, on the issue.
The plea said the practice violated the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it discriminated against devotees unable to afford the fee.
The petition also raised several concerns about the additional fee charged for an expedited access to temple deities.
The plea said charging fee ranging between ₹400 and ₹500 for the special darshan privileges created a divide between the affluent devotees and those who were unable to afford such charges, particularly disadvantaged women, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens.
It said that despite representations made to the home ministry, only a directive was issued to Andhra Pradesh, while other states like Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh remained unaddressed.
The plea, therefore, sought a direction to declare the levying of the additional fee violative of the constitutional rights of equality and religious freedom.
It sought directions to ensure equal treatment for all devotees in temple premises and framing of standard operating procedures by the Centre to ensure equitable access to temples.
Also read: Siddhivinayak temple bans short clothes, asks devotees to wear ‘Indian attire’
The plea further sought setting up of a national board to oversee the management and administration of temples nationwide.