Supreme Court Declines to Interfere in Mahakal VIP Darshan

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition challenging the practice of ‘VIP darshan’ at the Shri Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, observing that courts are not meant to regulate who enters a temple and at what time. The Bench underlined that such matters fall within the domain of temple administration and state authorities, not judicial adjudication.

Court’s view on judicial limits in religious practices

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that the court could not assume the role of a “gatekeeper” for temple entry. Emphasising the limits of judicial intervention, the Bench noted that decisions on access to sanctums and worship practices are administrative in nature. The CJI observed that courts are concerned only with justiciable issues and cannot decide who should be permitted entry into religious spaces or when.

Challenge to preferential access at Mahakaleshwar temple

The petition, filed by Darpan Awasthi, challenged a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that dismissed objections to preferential access granted to VIPs for entering the garbh-garha of the Mahakaleshwar temple. The petitioner argued that allowing select individuals, often on the orders of district authorities, to enter the sanctum while denying the same to the general public amounted to unequal treatment among citizens. The counsel sought a uniform policy governing access to the sanctum sanctorum.

Supreme Court’s response on equality and religious rights

Rejecting the plea, the Chief Justice remarked that “in the presence of Mahakal, nobody is a VIP” but clarified that this philosophical view did not translate into enforceable legal standards. The Bench cautioned against extending fundamental rights into every aspect of temple rituals, noting that unrestricted claims could disrupt religious practices and administration. The petitioner was advised to approach the competent authority, following which the plea was withdrawn.

Important Facts for Exams

• Justiciability determines whether an issue is suitable for judicial review.
• Temple administration often falls under state regulation through laws and committees.
• Garbh-garha refers to the innermost sanctum of a Hindu temple.
• Courts generally avoid interference in essential religious practices unless fundamental rights are clearly violated.

Observations on temple management and governance

In a separate matter, the Bench observed that temples with limited government intervention in management had shown improvement in pilgrim facilities. Referring to a case linked to the Anjaneya temple at Anjanadri Hills in Karnataka, the Chief Justice noted that donations were increasingly being used for public welfare, including roads, accommodation and primary healthcare. The remarks highlighted an evolving judicial perspective that balanced autonomy in temple management with accountability and service delivery.