Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed against the alleged special treatment given to VIPs at the Mahakaleshwar Mandir (‘the Temple’), the Division Bench of Vivek Rusia* and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ., rejected the petition, holding that the Writ Court could not decide as to who was a VIP amongst the persons visiting the Temple on a particular day, as it was the discretion of the competent authority and this was the system applicable in all the religious places in India.
Background
The petitioner’s grievance was that certain individuals, allegedly designated as VIPs, were being given the privilege of offering water to the deity inside the Garbhagriha of the Temple, whereas the general public was not permitted to enter. Therefore, this was a discriminatory and arbitrary action by the Temple administrators. According to the petitioner, he attempted to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but the Managing Administrator of the Temple refused to provide it.
Analysis
The Court noted that the minutes of the meeting of the Temple Management Committee showed that there was no specific prohibition regarding entering the Garbhagriha. The VIPs could enter the Garbhagriha with the permission of the Collector and Administrator of the Temple Management Committee. Therefore, the Court stated that determining who a VIP was in the opinion of the Collector and Administrator of the Temple could not be decided in a writ petition, which was purely a matter of the discretion of the competent authority.
“On a particular day, looking to the status of the person, the Collector shall be the competent authority to treat him as a VIP for the purpose of offering water to the deity. There is no permanent list or protocol published by the Managing Committee of the VIP persons.”
Hence, the Court held that the Writ Court could not decide as to who was a VIP amongst the persons visiting the Temple on a particular day. The “VIP” was not defined in any of the Statutory Acts or rules; hence, any person who was permitted by the competent authority to enter the Garbhagriha might be treated as VIP on a particular day and time. The Court added that this was the system applicable in all the religious places in India.
Thus, the Court rejected the petition as not maintainable since the petitioner appeared to be a personal aggrieved person.
[Darpan Awasthi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 6119, decided on 28-08-2025]
*Order authored by: Justice Vivek Rusia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Charchit Shastri
For the respondent: Deputy Advocate General Sudeep Bhargava
