Supreme court declines to hear plea against VIP darshan at Mahakaleshwar Temple
The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to entertain a plea challenging the practice of “VIP darshan” at the Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ujjain has reopened a long-standing debate on equality, faith and the limits of judicial intervention in religious administration.
Declining to examine the matter on merits, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant held that the regulation of temple rituals and entry into the sanctum sanctorum is not a “justiciable” issue. The court underlined that such matters fall within the domain of temple management and administrative authorities, and not within the scope of constitutional adjudication.
The plea had contended that preferential access granted to VIPs for offering water to the deity violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. However, the court cautioned against the strict and mechanical application of fundamental rights within sacred spaces, warning that it could lead to unintended consequences and disrupt established religious practices.
“If Article 14 is applied inside the sanctum sanctorum, claims under other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech may also follow,” the Chief Justice observed, pointing out that courts must recognise clear limits to judicial intervention in matters of faith and ritual.
The practice of VIP darshan, prevalent in several major temples across the country, has traditionally been justified on grounds of crowd management and security. Temples such as Mahakaleshwar, Tirupati and Vaishno Devi receive lakhs of devotees daily, far exceeding their original capacity, making differentiated access an administrative tool to manage time, security and movement.
Supporters of the practice argue that equality does not always require identical treatment and that reasonable classification is permissible under constitutional law. They maintain that constitutional authorities and public office holders often function under significant time and security constraints, and that separate access helps prevent congestion and potential risks. It is also argued that VIP darshan generally involves faster access rather than exclusive worship, and does not deny darshan to ordinary devotees.
Critics, however, view VIP darshan as contrary to the moral foundation of religion, which emphasises equality before the deity. They argue that political influence frequently replaces genuine administrative necessity, turning faith into a hierarchy of privilege. According to them, once preferential access becomes institutionalised, recommendations multiply, discretion expands and public trust in temple administration erodes.
Opponents further contend that even if equality rights are not legally enforceable within the sanctum sanctorum, constitutional morality should guide the conduct of State-managed temples. They argue that such institutions must avoid reinforcing social or political hierarchies, particularly in spaces meant to symbolise spiritual equality.
By permitting the petitioner to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the temple authorities, the Supreme Court signalled that any change in VIP darshan practices must come through administrative reform or public engagement rather than judicial mandate. The ruling reflects the judiciary’s cautious approach to balancing constitutional principles with religious autonomy, leaving questions of fairness and reform to be addressed through democratic and administrative processes rather than courtroom intervention.