Supreme Court Declines to Interfere in ‘VIP Darshan’ Practice at Ujjain’s Mahakaleshwar Temple

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition challenging the practice of ‘VIP darshan’ at the Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ujjain, observing that such matters fall outside the scope of judicial intervention and should be decided by temple authorities and the administration.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice R. Mahadevan, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by Darpan Awasthi, who had questioned the preferential access granted to VIPs to enter the garbhagriha (innermost sanctum) of the temple to offer water to the deity, while similar access is denied to the general public.

Court flags limits of judicial review

During the hearing, the Bench made it clear that regulating access inside a temple’s sanctum was not a matter for courts to decide. “Whether it should be allowed or should not be allowed is not for the Court to decide. It is a question of justiciability,” Chief Justice Kant observed.

The CJI cautioned that if courts begin applying constitutional equality norms within the sanctum, it could open the door to wider claims of fundamental rights in religious spaces. “If we hold that Article 14 applies inside the sanctum sanctorum, then tomorrow people will say Article 19 applies as well — the right to speech, the right to chant mantras,” he said, warning against judicial overreach into religious administration.

Argument of discrimination under Article 14

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the petitioner, argued that selective access to the garbhagriha violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. He contended that either access should be uniformly denied or uniformly allowed, and that citizens should not be differentiated on the basis of VIP status.

“A devotee visiting Mahakal should also have the right to enter the garbhagriha and offer water, just as those granted permission through official recommendations,” Jain submitted.

However, the Bench remained unconvinced, reiterating that such policy decisions should be left to those “at the helm of affairs” rather than the judiciary.

Petition withdrawn, liberty granted

Following the Court’s indication that it was not inclined to intervene, the petitioner chose to withdraw the plea. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal and granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the concerned authorities.

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

High Court’s earlier stance upheld

The plea before the Supreme Court had challenged an earlier order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed a similar petition. The High Court had noted that there was no permanent list of VIPs and that permissions to enter the garbhagriha were granted on a case-by-case basis by the district collector and the temple management committee.

It had further held that deciding who qualifies as a VIP on any given day was a matter of administrative discretion and not something that could be adjudicated in a writ petition.

Wider debate continues

While the Supreme Court has declined to step in, the issue of VIP darshan continues to spark debate among devotees and civil society, with critics questioning preferential access in places of worship and supporters arguing the need for crowd management and administrative discretion.

For now, the top court has drawn a clear line, signalling that such decisions must be resolved through administrative and policy channels rather than judicial mandates.