Last Updated:
A petitioner has challenged the ‘VIP treatment’ given to a few people to enter the sanctum of the Mahakal temple, while denying access to the general public
Courts have drawn a line between regulating the secular administration of religious institutions and interfering in matters closely connected to faith and practice. (Getty Images)
When the Supreme Court of India recently declined to entertain a plea against the practice of ‘VIP Darshan’ at the Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ujjain, the legal order itself was unremarkable. The bench refused to intervene, indicating that temple entry and ritual-related issues were not matters for judicial adjudication and that grievances should instead be taken up with the administration.
Yet the response outside the courtroom told a different story. For devotees who wait hours for a fleeting glimpse of the deity, while others appear to walk straight into the sanctum, the order seems like a dismissal of lived experience.
Should courts be cautious when asked to regulate faith? Let’s understand the Mahakal controversy, how modern India negotiates equality and religious tradition, and what the role of institutions in managing faith should be.
What Was The Petition?
The petitioner, Darpan Awasthi, challenged the system of preferential access to the garbhagriha (sanctum sanctorum) of the Mahakal Temple, arguing that when a temple is a public religious institution administered under state supervision, access cannot be governed by informal privilege.
The contention was not that rituals should change, but that entry policies should be uniform, transparent, and consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
In practical terms, the petition questioned why certain categories of people (“VIPs”) were allowed closer and quicker access to the deity while ordinary devotees navigated long queues and restricted movement. The absence of a clearly defined policy, the petitioner argued, allowed discretion to become discrimination.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, counsel for the petitioner, Awasthi, had challenged a Madhya Pradesh High Court order dismissing his petition against the ‘VIP treatment’ to enter the sanctum of the temple, while denying access to the general public.
Why The Supreme Court Said
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, “In the presence of Mahakal (the deity), nobody is a VIP.” “The court is not the one to decide on this. Let those at the helm of affairs decide. We are only about justiciability. Courts cannot start to decide who should be allowed or not and when they should be allowed or not,” he added.
“People would want to enter because somebody else is doing it. Then they will say we want to chant mantras as part of our right to speak. All fundamental rights have to be practised inside the sanctum sanctorum? Please go and make your representation before the authority concerned,” the CJI observed orally, allowing advocate Jain to withdraw the petition.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene reflects a broader judicial philosophy that has evolved over decades. Courts have drawn a line between regulating the secular administration of religious institutions and interfering in matters closely connected to faith and practice. Darshan, in the court’s view, occupies a grey zone. It is not merely a service like ticketing or parking, but a religious experience shaped by tradition, belief, and ritual hierarchy.
CJI Kant, in a separate case, observed orally that temples with “limited government intervention for the purpose of management” provided better facilities and services to pilgrims.
The oral observations concerned a petition linked to the Anjaneya temple, believed to be the birthplace of Lord Hanuman, located at Anjanadri Hills in Karnataka’s Koppal district.
If courts begin to adjudicate how access to deities should be distributed, they risk becoming arbiters of religious practice rather than interpreters of law. Such a move could invite a cascade of litigation across faiths and regions, pulling the judiciary into disputes it is neither designed nor equipped to resolve.
The Mahakal order thus fits into a pattern of judicial self-restraint, where courts defer to religious autonomy unless there is a clear violation of law or fundamental rights that can be cleanly separated from belief.
How Does The Mahakal Temple Handle The Crowd?
Mahakaleshwar Temple is among India’s most prominent pilgrimage sites, one of the 12 Jyotirlingas revered by Shaivites. Managed by a temple committee under state oversight, the shrine handles a daily footfall of 1.5 lakh devotees while ensuring safety, order, and ritual continuity.
In such contexts, administrators argue that differential access is often a logistical necessity rather than a moral choice. High-profile visitors may require security arrangements, limited space within the sanctum demands controlled entry, and peak days, festivals, and auspicious timings can see tens of thousands of devotees converge, making unrestricted access impractical. From this perspective, VIP darshan is framed as a crowd-management tool, not a theological statement about whose faith matters more.
However, critics argue that when “VIP” remains an undefined category and decisions appear ad hoc, perceptions of unfairness flourish. Under the rule of law, religious administration is expected to operate within a framework of clarity and accountability.
Temple Management In India
Institutional control over major pilgrimage centres in India is characterised by significant state-level management of Hindu temples through departments like the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE), affecting administration, income, and access. While legal frameworks (Article 25(2)) allow state intervention in religious institutions to regulate economic and social activities, it often creates tension with constitutional rights of denominations to manage their own affairs (Article 26).
Major temples in states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Jammu & Kashmir (e.g., Tirupati, Vaishno Devi) are governed by state-appointed boards that manage assets and access.
Government authorities regulate access through ticketing systems, visitor capacity limits, and crowd management, particularly at high-density sites.
Central and state bodies, such as through the PRASHAD scheme (Pilgrimage Rejuvenation and Spiritual Augmentation Drive), control infrastructure improvements, including sanitation, transportation, and facilities at pilgrimage sites.
In sensitive areas, such as tiger reserves, forest departments collaborate with temple authorities to control visitor impact.
What VIP Darshan Really Represents
The term “VIP darshan” is deceptively simple. In practice, it encompasses a range of arrangements. In some temples, it includes paid passes that limit numbers and fund maintenance. In others, it involves protocol visits by elected representatives, officials, or donors. There are also time-bound darshan windows reserved for specific groups, often justified as a way to spread footfall across the day.
At Mahakaleshwar, the issue is intensified by the sanctity and spatial constraints of the sanctum sanctorum. Historically, access to the inner sanctum has never been universal or continuous. What has changed is visibility. With improved infrastructure, live coverage, and social media amplification, moments of preferential access now circulate widely, inviting scrutiny and comparison.
The inauguration of the Mahakal Lok corridor in 2022 has dramatically increased footfall from 40,000-50,000 to 1.5 lakh, transforming the pilgrimage experience and placing unprecedented strain on infrastructure. Administrators have responded by tightening access, shortening darshan durations, and relying more heavily on controlled entry systems.
For devotees, this has produced a paradox. While the temple complex has expanded and beautified, actual time spent near the deity has, for many, diminished. In this environment, any sign of preferential treatment becomes a lightning rod for frustration, feeding narratives of inequality in a space that symbolically promises spiritual parity.
What’s The Pattern Across Other Temples In India?
The Mahakal debate echoes controversies at other major pilgrimage centres. At Tirupati Balaji Temple, officially known as Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, tiered darshan systems allow devotees to choose between free queues and paid, faster access.
At Vaishno Devi, helicopter services and priority passes have sparked debates about whether convenience undermines the egalitarian ethos of pilgrimage. At Kedarnath Temple, crowd regulation has raised questions about who gets closer for darshan, and why.
These cases suggest a structural challenge rather than isolated mismanagement. As pilgrimage becomes mass tourism and religious institutions adopt modern administrative models, tensions between equality and efficiency are inevitable.
January 29, 2026, 08:15 IST
Stay Ahead, Read Faster
Scan the QR code to download the News18 app and enjoy a seamless news experience anytime, anywhere.
