The Supreme Court on Friday in its order refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions against the rising practice of allowing preferential visits to 'VIPs' in temples across India.
"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," the top court said, after hearing a PIL filed by one, Vijay Kishor Goswami.
While refusing to pass any order and or direction on the issue, the two-judge Bench of the apex court, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said, this Court cannot issue directions on the issue.
"However, we clarify that dismissal of the petition will not bar the appropriate authorities from taking appropriate action as required," the bench said.
Goswami had moved the apex court seeking appropriate directions to the Union of India in this regard.
Earlier on October 27 last year, the Supreme Court bench, led by CJI Khanna, said that it would examine the writ petition challenging the imposition of "VIP entry charges" at major temples across India.
The PIL filed in the apex court, said that the practice of charging fees for expedited or preferential darshan of deities discriminated against the section of economically disadvantaged devotees, violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Dignity).
The petition argued that temples across the country are increasingly charging fees, ranging from Rs. 400 to Rs. 5000, to facilitate quicker access for those who can afford the charges, while ordinary devotees, often indigent and travelling long distances, face significant delays in darshan.
The petition contended that such fees might infringe upon the constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and religious freedom.
Earlier, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted, "This is a Writ Petition against the imposition of VIP entry charges. "Madras High Court had dealt with this issue but did not go into the question of whether this is discriminatory, violative of Article 14."
The plea said that despite representations made to the home ministry, only a directive was issued to Andhra Pradesh, while other states like Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh remained unaddressed.
It, therefore, sought a direction to declare the levying of the additional fee violative of the constitutional rights of equality and religious freedom.
It also sought directions to ensure equal treatment for all devotees in temple premises and framing of standard operating procedures by the Centre to ensure equitable access to temples.
The plea further sought setting up of a national board to oversee the management and administration of temples nationwide.
(With inputs from PTI)
