Apex Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Challenging Alleged Special Treatment For VIPs In Temples
|The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) challenging an alleged special treatment for VIPs (Very Important Persons) in the temples.
The PIL was preferred against the alleged practice of charging an additional fee for "VIP darshan" and providing “preferential, selective and special treatment” to a certain class of people in temples.
The said PIL was filed by Vijay Kishor Goswami, 'sevait' at Shri Radha Madan Mohan Temple in Vrindavan.
The two-Judge Bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, "While we may be of the opinion that no special treatment should be given but this court cannot issue directions. We do not think it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, we clarify that dismissal of the petition will not bar the appropriate authorities from taking appropriate action as required."
The Bench said that it was for the society and temple management to decide the issue and the Court cannot pass any direction.
Advocate Akash Vashishtha appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
It was argued by the counsel for the Petitioner that there is some Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) required as there are 12 Jyotirlingas and it is completely arbitrary practice of "VIP darshan". The PIL stated that the said practice violated the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it discriminated against devotees who are unable to afford the fee.
The PIL further raised several concerns about the additional fee charged for an expedited access to temple deities. It was claimed that, charging fee between Rs. 400-500/- for the special darshan privileges created a divide between the affluent devotees and those who were unable to afford such charges, particularly disadvantaged women, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens.
It was submitted that, despite representations made to the Home Ministry, only a directive was issued to State of Andhra Pradesh, while other States like Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh remained unaddressed. Hence, the Petition sought a direction to declare the levying of the additional fee violative of the Constitutional rights of equality and religious freedom.
The PIL further sought directions to ensure equal treatment for all devotees in temple premises and framing of SOPs by the Centre to ensure equitable access to temples. It also sought setting up of a National Board to oversee the management and administration of temples nationwide.
With PTI Inputs