The Supreme Courtroom on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition difficult the follow of ‘VIP Dharshan’ on the Shri Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, observing that it’s not a matter for the Courtroom to determine.
After the Courtroom expressed disinclination to entertain the petition, the petitioner selected to withdraw it, with liberty to file a illustration earlier than the involved authorities.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was listening to a petition filed by Darpan Awasthi difficult the order of the Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom dismissing his petition difficult the preferntial remedy given to VIPs to enter the Garbhagriha (innermost sanctum) to supply water to the deity, whereas denying entry to most people.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, for the petitioner, submitted that there needs to be a uniform coverage on who’s allowed to enter the Garbhagriha. “There’s a violation of Article 14. Whether or not an individual who needs to be allowed contained in the garbhgriha, there needs to be a uniform coverage of equal remedy. Residents can’t be discriminated or differentiated on the idea of VIP standing . If an individual is coming into a garbhagrih- it is due to the advice of a collector..a devotee who can be visiting Mahakal – he also needs to have a proper to enter the garbha grih and provide water to the deity,” Jain submitted.
“Whether or not it needs to be allowed or shouldn’t be, it is not for the Courtroom to determine. We’re on the query of justiciability. Ideally, could also be. However for that, let those that are on the helm of affairs take a call, not the Courts. If Courts begin regulating who needs to be allowed to enter or who shouldn’t be, it is an excessive amount of for the Courts…” CJI Kant noticed.
CJI mentioned that if the Courtroom is to carry that Article 14 of the Structure applies contained in the sanctum sanatorium, then individuals will declare different rights similar to Article 19 as effectively.
“First you say I’ve a proper to enter as a result of so and so is coming into, you then say I’ve the fitting to chant mantras right here, becasue I’ve proper to speech , so all basic rights can be there contained in the sanctum sanctorum…” CJI Kant mentioned.
Jain submitted that his level was on discrimination – both there needs to be a whole prohibition or full entry to anybody. There shouldn’t be selective permission on the idea of preferential remedy.
Because the Courtroom was not persuaded to intrude, the petitioner selected to withdraw the matter.
“The petitioner seeks and is permitted to withdraw the petition and is at liberty to offer his solutions/ suggestions to the competent authority,” the Courtroom recorded within the order.
The Excessive Courtroom famous that the petitioner had produced the minutes of the Managing Committee of Mahakaleshwar Mandir which exhibits that there isn’t any particular prohibition in respect of coming into into the Garbhagriha. The Courtroom famous that as per the minutes, the VIPs can enter the innermost sanctum with a permission of Collector and Administrator of Administration Committee.
The Excessive Courtroom mentioned that who’s VIP within the opinion of Collector and Administrator of Mahakaleshwar can’t be determined in a writ petition, as it’s “purely a discretion” of the competent authority.
“On a selected day seeking to the standing of the individual, the Collector shall be the competent authority to deal with him VIP for the aim of providing water to the deity. There is no such thing as a everlasting record or protocol printed by Managing Committee of the VIPs individuals. Therefore, the writ Courtroom can not determine as to who’s VIP amongst the individuals visiting Mahakaleshwar Temple on a selected day,” the Excessive Courtroom mentioned.
“The “VIP” has not been outlined in any of the statutory Act or guidelines, any one who is given permission by competent authority to enter contained in the Garbhagriha could also be handled as VIP on a selected day & time schedule. That is the system relevant in all of the spiritual locations in India. The petitioner seems to be a private aggrieved individual, therefore, writ petition on the occasion of petitioner is just 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,
