Key Highlights:
- Supreme Court’s Stand: The apex court refused to ban VIP/VVIP privileges in temples, stating the issue should be addressed by temple authorities and society, not judiciary.
- Constitutional Arguments: PIL argued that VIP darshan fees (₹400–500) violate rights to equality (Article 14) and religious freedom (Article 21).
- Impact on Marginalized Groups: Critics claim the system discriminates against the poor, disabled, women, and elderly who can’t afford premium access.
- Court’s Advisory Role: The bench, led by CJI Sanjeev Khanna, emphasized it can only advise, not mandate changes, under Article 32.
New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the controversial VIP darshan system in temples, asserting that decisions on such practices must stem from societal consensus and temple administrations rather than judicial mandates.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the petition, which sought to abolish premium darshan fees and special access for VIPs, arguing these practices perpetuate inequality. The court, however, refrained from issuing directives, stressing that “temple management and society should resolve this matter.”
What is VIP Darshan?
VIP darshan refers to paid priority access in temples, allowing affluent devotees to bypass long queues for quicker proximity to deities. Temples like Tirumala Tirupati, Sabarimala, and Siddhivinayak offer such services, charging up to ₹500 for expedited entry—a practice critics label as “religious apartheid.”
PIL’s Core Arguments
The PIL, filed by activist Anjali Gupta, contended that VIP darshan:
- Violates Equality: Creates a two-tier system favoring the wealthy.
- Marginalizes Vulnerable Groups: Disproportionately affects women, seniors, and disabled devotees who struggle with long waits.
- Commercializes Faith: Reduces spiritual access to a transactional service.
Gupta argued such practices breach Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to dignity), urging the court to enforce uniform access.
SC’s Rationale: Why No Judicial Intervention?
The bench clarified that while the issue merits attention, it falls outside judicial purview. Key remarks included:
- CJI Khanna: “The judiciary cannot micromanage temple protocols. These are societal issues requiring dialogue, not court orders.”
- Article 32 Limitation: The court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction, stating the matter doesn’t warrant constitutional enforcement.
Public Reaction and Temple Responses
- Critics: Opposition leaders and activists slammed the verdict, calling it a blow to equitable religious practices. DMK’s Kanimozhi stated, “Spiritual access shouldn’t hinge on wealth.”
- Temple Authorities: Defended VIP darshan as essential for crowd management and revenue. A Tirumala trustee noted, “Funds from VIP tickets maintain facilities and subsidize pilgrim amenities.”
Societal Implications and Way Forward
The ruling sparks debate over religion vs. capitalism in India. While some temples argue VIP fees sustain operations, opponents demand universal darshan systems akin to Kerala’s Virtual Q-Model, which allocates slots via lottery.
Next Steps: Activists plan grassroots campaigns urging temples to voluntarily abolish VIP tiers. Meanwhile, states like Tamil Nadu have already scrapped premium darshan in major shrines.
A Call for Ethical Reflection
The Supreme Court’s verdict underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere in religious customs, placing the onus on society to balance tradition with inclusivity. As India grapples with evolving norms, the temple VIP controversy remains a litmus test for ethical governance in spiritual spaces.
