Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against 'VIP Dharshan' At Ujjain Mahakaleshwar Temple

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition challenging the practice of 'VIP Dharshan' at the Shri Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, observing that it is not a matter for the Court to decide.

After the Court expressed disinclination to entertain the petition, the petitioner chose to withdraw it, with liberty to file a representation before the concerned authorities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Darpan Awasthi challenging the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing his petition challenging the preferntial treatment given to VIPs to enter the Garbhagriha (innermost sanctum) to offer water to the deity, while denying access to the general public.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, for the petitioner, submitted that there should be a uniform policy on who is allowed to enter the Garbhagriha. "There is a violation of Article 14. Whether a person who should be allowed inside the garbhgriha, there should be a uniform policy of equal treatment. Citizens cannot be discriminated or differentiated on the basis of VIP status . If a person is entering a garbhagrih- it's because of the recommendation of a collector..a devotee who is also visiting Mahakal - he should also have a right to enter the garbha grih and offer water to the deity," Jain submitted.

"Whether it should be allowed or should not be, it's not for the Court to decide. We are on the question of justiciability. Ideally, may be. But for that, let those who are at the helm of affairs take a decision, not the Courts. If Courts start regulating who should be allowed to enter or who should not be, it's too much for the Courts..." CJI Kant observed.

CJI said that if the Court is to hold that Article 14 of the Constitution applies inside the sanctum sanatorium, then people will claim other rights such as Article 19 as well.

"First you say I have a right to enter because so and so is entering, then you say I have the right to chant mantras here, becasue I have right to speech , so all fundamental rights will be there inside the sanctum sanctorum..." CJI Kant said.

Jain submitted that his point was on discrimination - either there should be a complete prohibition or complete access to anyone. There should not be selective permission on the basis of preferential treatment.

As the Court was not persuaded to interfere, the petitioner chose to withdraw the matter.

"The petitioner seeks and is permitted to withdraw the petition and is at liberty to give his suggestions/ recommendations to the competent authority," the Court recorded in the order.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had produced the minutes of the Managing Committee of Mahakaleshwar Mandir which shows that there is no specific prohibition in respect of entering into the Garbhagriha. The Court noted that as per the minutes, the VIPs can enter the innermost sanctum with a permission of Collector and Administrator of Management Committee.

The High Court said that who is VIP in the opinion of Collector and Administrator of Mahakaleshwar cannot be decided in a writ petition, as it is "purely a discretion" of the competent authority.

"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 High Court said.

"The "VIP" has not been defined in any of the statutory Act or rules, 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," it added.

D No. 400/2026 DARPAN AWASTHI Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH P: VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN,