Supreme Court rejects PIL against VIP darshan, states "It is a policy matter for authorities"

On January 31, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the practice of charging VIP darshan fees in temples across India. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, ruled that the issue was not suitable for judicial intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows the Court to entertain petitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court made it clear that while it agreed that preferential treatment in temples may be arbitrary, the matter was a policy issue best left to government authorities to address.

The PIL was filed by Vijay Kishor Goswami, a sevait (caretaker) at the Shri Radha Madan Mohan Temple in Vrindavan, who argued that charging additional fees ranging from Rs. 400 to Rs. 500 for VIP darshan violated the constitutional principles of equality as outlined in Articles 14 and 21. Goswami contended that this practice created a divide between affluent devotees who could afford the fees and those who could not, particularly disadvantaging vulnerable groups such as women, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens. The PIL emphasized that charging a fee for expedited access to temple deities was discriminatory and resulted in unequal access to religious services.

Goswami’s legal counsel also raised safety concerns, stating that the practice of VIP darshan without standardized procedures contributed to stampedes and other safety hazards at high-traffic temples. The petitioners referred to multiple incidents of overcrowding and fatalities at religious events, including the ongoing Maha Kumbh in Uttar Pradesh, which involved large crowds and led to the cancellation of VVIP passes following fatal stampedes. They argued that the lack of clear Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) at prominent temples, such as the 12 Jyotirlingas and Shaktipeeths, exacerbated safety risks.

The petition further highlighted that despite several representations made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, only the state of Andhra Pradesh had received a directive to address the issue, while states such as Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh had not taken any steps to regulate VIP darshan practices. Goswami and his counsel called for a national framework to standardize temple management and ensure equitable access for all devotees, regardless of their financial capacity. The PIL requested the abolition of VIP darshan fees, the establishment of a national board to oversee the administration of temples, and the creation of an SOP for temples to regulate entry and manage crowd control effectively.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench observed that while it was in agreement with the concern that preferential treatment was arbitrary, it emphasized that such matters were within the domain of the Union government and state authorities. The Court stated that it could not pass orders on administrative matters, especially when they involved policy decisions. The bench concluded that the issue fell outside the scope of judicial review under Article 32 and should be handled by the relevant authorities with the necessary legislative or regulatory action.

In response to the petitioners’ concerns regarding unequal access to temples, the Court noted that the dismissal of the PIL did not preclude authorities from taking any necessary actions. The bench clarified that while it did not issue any directions, the relevant authorities were free to consider the concerns raised in the petition and take appropriate action in line with public welfare.