New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition challenging the practice of ‘VIP darshan’ and selective entry into the ‘Garbhagriha’ (innermost sanctum) of the Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ujjain.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, observed that it was not a matter for judicial interference.
Sensing the court’s disinclination to entertain the plea, the petitioner’s counsel chose to withdraw the matter with liberty to make a representation before the authorities concerned.
“Whether it should be allowed or should not be, it’s not for the apex court to decide. Ideally, maybe. But for that, let those who are at the helm of affairs take a decision, not the courts,” the bench, also comprising Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, observed.
The special leave petition (SLP) challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court order, which had dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) against alleged preferential treatment being given to VIPs to enter the ‘Garbhagriha’ to offer water to the deity, while denying access to the general public.
The petitioner had contended that selective access to the sanctum violated Article 14 of the Constitution and amounted to discrimination on the basis of VIP status. However, the MP High Court, in its detailed order authored by Justice Vivek Rusia, had declined to interfere, noting that “the VIPs can enter in the Garbhagriha with a permission of Collector and Administrator of Management Committee of Mahakaleshwar Mandir” and “who is VIP in the opinion of Collector and Administrator of Mahakaleshwar cannot be decided in a writ petition, which is purely a discretion of the competent authority”.
It further observed that “the ‘VIP’ has not been defined in any of the statutory Acts or rules, hence any person who is given permission by the competent authority to enter inside the Garbhagriha may be treated as VIP on a particular day & time schedule”.
Holding that the writ court cannot decide who qualifies as a VIP, the MP High Court said the petitioner appeared to be “a personal aggrieved person” and ruled that the PIL was not maintainable.
At the Supreme Court, the CJI also cautioned that if courts were to apply fundamental rights inside the sanctum sanctorum, it could open the door to further claims. “If courts start regulating who should be allowed to enter or who should not be, it’s too much for the courts,” the apex court remarked, adding that applying Article 14 could lead to claims under other fundamental rights as well.
(IANS)
