These Petitions Are Not Filed By Shradhalus: Supreme Court Refuses To Regulate "VIP Culture" At Ujjain Mahakaleshwar Temple
The Court remarked that devotees should not enter the temple "garlanded" with fundamental rights like Articles 14 or 19, cautioning that using the right to equality or free speech to demand entry or the right to chant mantras.
The Supreme Court, today, refused to entertain a plea challenging the special access to VIPs to offer water to the deity inside the Garbhagriha of Mahakaleshwar Temple, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.
The petition, filed by Ujjain resident Darpan Awasthi, assailed the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which held that granting special access to the garbhagriha (sanctum sanctorum) is a matter of administrative discretion.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked, "These kinds of persons who file these petitions, they are not Shradhalus, they don't go there. That's why we don't want to comment further; these people go for different purposes."
AOR Vishnu Shankar Jain appeared for the Petitioner.
The Court remarked, "Because you are unnecessarily...if you file a petition, the High Court is bound to write some line here and there."
Jain submitted, "We made an RTI enquiry. In the RTI also, as well as in the minutes, they say that only the VIPs,as at present will be given entry to the garbhagriha."
"My respectful submission is subject to correction by this Honourable Court, that so far as entry into garbhagriha is concerned, there should be a uniform policy. Whether a person is allowed entry in the garbhagriha or not allowed, it should be on the basis of a particular guideline or on the basis of a uniform policy," AOR Jain submitted.
Justice Kant said, "Whether it should be or not be, it is not something the Court should decide. That is the point. We are only talking of justiciability of anything. Ideally, it may be, but for that, let those who are in the helm of affairs, they should take a decision, not the Courts. If the Courts will start regulating who should be allowed to enter the temple, who should not be allowed to enter, when should it be allowed, we will not give too much for the Courts also."
If a person is entering a garbhagriha, it is on the basis of a recommendation of a collector or a devotee, who is also visiting Mahakaal, he should also have the right to enter the garbhagriha and offer water to the deity.
Justice Kant said, "If the people will enter there (temple) garlanded with Article 14, 16, sometimes 19, then 20, 21, then better they don't go. First, you will say, now I have the right to enter because so and so is entering, therefore I will enter there. Then you say, I have now right to chant the mantras here because I have the right to speak. So all fundamental rights will be there only inside the sanctum sanctorum."
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the current system lacks a uniform policy, leading to arbitrary discrimination. Relying on RTI enquiries, the petitioner pointed out that the current minutes of the temple committee formalize entry for "State Guests and VIPs" while denying the same to the general public.
The petitioner maintained that Article 14 (Equality before law) is violated when the State creates a separate class of citizens based on social or political status. Further, Article 25 (Right to worship) should be available uniformly to all Shriddhalu (devotees). He also added that the Collector's discretion to name a "VIP" on a day-to-day basis lacks statutory backing under the Shri Mahakaleshwar Adhiniyam, 1982.
The Court ordered, "Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and is permitted to withdraw the present petition as he wants to give suggestions to the competent authority."
Background
A writ petition was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the nature of P.I.L after obtaining various information from the newspapers. According to the petitioner, he tried to get the various information under the RTI Act, but the Managing Administrator of Mahakaleshwar Mandir refused to supply the same. The grievance of the petitioner was that certain so-called VIPs are getting the facility of offering water to the deity inside the Garbhagriha of Mahakaleshwar, whereas the general public is not permitted to enter inside; therefore, there is discrimination and arbitrary action by the administrator of Mahalkaleshwar Temple.
The High Court had ordered, "On a particular day looking to the status of the person, the Collector shall be the competent authority to treat him VIP for the purpose of offering water to the deity. There is no permanent list or protocol published by Managing Committee of the VIPs persons. Hence, the writ Court cannot decide as to who is VIP amongst the persons visiting Mahakaleshwar Temple on a particular day. The "VIP" has not been defined in any of the statutory Act or rules, hence any person who is given permission by competent authority to enter inside the Garbhagriha may be treated as VIP on a particular day & time schedule. This is the system applicable in all the religious places in India. The petitioner appears to be a personal aggrieved person, hence, writ petition at the instance of petitioner is not maintainable...In view of above, petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs."
Accordingly, the matter was withdrawn by the Petitioner.
Cause Title: Darshan Awasthi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [Diary No. 400/2026]