Today, On 27th January, The Supreme Court on refused to entertain a petition challenging the ‘VIP Darshan’ system at Ujjain’s Mahakaleshwar Temple, stating it is not for the Court to decide. The bench said such temple management issues fall outside its judicial domain.
The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling regarding access to the Mahakaleshwar Temple’s sanctum sanctorum.
The matter concerned whether there should be a uniform policy for entry into the Garbhagriha, or whether it should remain at the discretion of temple authorities and district officials.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was reviewing a petition from Darpan Awasthi.
He is contesting the decision made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed his appeal against the preferential access granted to VIPs for entering the Garbhagriha (the innermost sanctum) to offer water to the deity, while restricting entry for the general public.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the petitioner, argued that,
“there must be a uniform policy for entry into the Garbhagriha, contending that allowing or denying access should follow clear guidelines; arbitrary decisions could violate Article 14.”
He submitted that a uniform system would prevent any unfair or arbitrary denial of entry to priests or devotees.
The petitioner’s plea referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court order dated 14th February 2023, which explicitly directed that he be allowed to perform his duties as an archak.
The petition claimed,
“Yet, in violation of these directions, the State Government appointed its own pujari. The petitioner has not engaged in any such acts. This, I submit, is part of a conspiracy hatched against my client,”
However, the Chief Justice of India remarked that,
“Whether it should be allowed or should not be, it’s not for the Court to decide. We are on the question of justiciability. Ideally, may be. But for that, let those who are at the helm of affairs take a decision, not the Courts. If Courts start regulating who should be allowed to enter or who should not be, it’s too much for the Courts…”
Chief Justice Surya Kant further remarked,
“First you say I have a right to enter because so and so is entering, then you say I have the right to chant mantras here, because I have right to speech, so all fundamental rights will be there inside the sanctum sanctorum…”
In response, Jain clarified that his concern was about discrimination, stating that there should either be a complete ban or full access for all devotees, and selective permissions based on preferential treatment should not be allowed.
The petitioner eventually sought to withdraw the petition. The Bench allowed the withdrawal and also granted liberty to the petitioner to give suggestions regarding temple management.
The petitioner, along with other devotees in similar situations, has expressed concern regarding the temple committee’s decision to permit VIP devotees to conduct pooja and rituals within the sanctum sanctorum, while simultaneously restricting general devotees from doing so since 2023.
Awasthi contended that the committee lacks the authority to limit the rights of general devotees to seek darshan and perform pooja, as these rights are guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
The petition emphasized that the Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple Administrative Committee was established under the Shri Mahakaleshwar Adhiniyam, 1982.
The petitioner argues that this law does not grant the committee the power to make special provisions for VIPs, politicians, bureaucrats, affluent individuals, or other influential persons.
Read Live Coverage