The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a writ petition questioning the legality and constitutionality of the practice of preferential or ‘VIP’ darshan at the Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ujjain, holding that the issue fell beyond the domain of judicial adjudication and squarely within the administrative discretion of the competent authorities managing the religious institution.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed its disinclination to examine the merits of the plea, observing that questions relating to the regulation of religious practices, access protocols, and internal temple administration did not ordinarily lend themselves to judicial determination under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the proceedings. The Apex Court accordingly dismissed the plea as withdrawn, while granting liberty to the petitioner to submit representations or policy suggestions to the appropriate statutory and administrative authorities.
The plea challenged a Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict that dismissed a writ petition contesting differential access to the garbhagriha, the innermost sanctum of the temple, where select individuals were permitted to perform jal abhishek with the approval of the district administration, while ordinary devotees were denied similar access.
The petitioner alleged violations of Article 14 of the Constitution, contending that selective entry into the sanctum based on perceived VIP status amounted to impermissible classification and hostile discrimination, inconsistent with the guarantee of equality before the law.
It was argued that either uniform access should be permitted to all devotees or a complete prohibition should operate, and that selective permissions granted through executive recommendation undermine the constitutional principle of equal treatment.
The top court of the country underscored the doctrinal limits of constitutional adjudication in matters of religious administration. It cautioned that judicial enforcement of equality norms within the sanctum could trigger a cascade of competing fundamental rights claims, including freedoms under Article 19, thereby entangling constitutional courts in the micromanagement of religious spaces.
It further emphasised that while constitutional guarantees operated broadly, their application within the inner functioning of religious institutions raised complex questions concerning the balance between secular constitutional mandates and religious autonomy protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The High Court had dismissed the plea on the grounds that after perusing the records of the Mahakaleshwar Temple Managing Committee, it did not find any statutory prohibition on entry into the garbhagriha. It held that permissions granted to certain individuals were issued on a case-by-case basis by the District Collector and the Administrator of the Temple Management Committee, without the existence of any permanent or codified list of VIPs.
The High Court further ruled that the determination of VIP status on any given day was a situational administrative assessment and could not be subjected to judicial scrutiny in writ proceedings. The term ‘VIP’ found no definition under any applicable statute or rules governing temple administration, it noted, adding that permissions granted for limited ritual access did not constitute enforceable legal rights, rendering the petition non-maintainable.
The post Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging VIP darshan policy at Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain appeared first on India Legal.