Supreme Court dismisses PIL challenging VIP darshan fees in temples

SC dismisses PIL against VIP darshan fees, leaving the matter to temple authorities and society's discretion.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Supreme Court dismisses PIL challenging VIP darshan fees in temples

The Supreme Court on Friday chose not to consider a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) contesting the practice of levying additional fees for “VIP darshan” and the preferential treatment afforded to specific individuals in temples.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar asserted that decisions regarding such practices should be determined by society and temple officials, rather than the judiciary. “While we may believe that no special treatment ought to be provided, this court cannot issue orders. We do not consider this a suitable case to invoke jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution,” the bench stated. Nonetheless, they indicated that dismissing the petition would not inhibit relevant authorities from taking appropriate action if necessary.

Advocate Akash Vashishtha, acting on behalf of the petitioner, contended that there ought to be a uniform procedure for practices like “VIP darshan,” pointing out issues at the 12 Jyotirlingas, where the practice is particularly notable.

The petition, submitted by Vijay Kishor Goswami, a ‘sevait’ (caretaker) at Shri Radha Madan Mohan Temple in Vrindavan, asserted that the practice breached constitutional principles of equality, specifically Articles 14 and 21. It claimed that the charge for expedited darshan, between ₹400 and ₹500, created a distinction between affluent and less-privileged devotees, especially affecting marginalized groups like women, individuals with disabilities, and senior citizens.

The petition further highlighted that even though representations had been submitted to the home ministry, states such as Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh had yet to address the matter. The plea requested the court to declare the additional fee unconstitutional and sought equal treatment for all temple visitors, along with the development of standard operating procedures to guarantee fair access to temples. Additionally, it advocated for the creation of a national board to supervise the management of temples throughout the country.

Tags: