‘Media shouldn’t exaggerate’: SC irked over news reports on hearing over ‘VIP’ visits at temples
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over “misrepresentation” of its last hearing in certain media reports pertaining to the hearing of a PIL against the practice of charging an additional fee for "VIP darshan" in temples across the country.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over “misrepresentation” of its last hearing in certain media reports pertaining to the hearing of a PIL against the practice of charging an additional fee for “VIP darshan” in temples across the country.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar last heard the plea filed by one Vijay Kishor Goswami on the issue on October 25 and made certain observations.
“Last time whatever happened in the court was completely misrepresented in the media…completely misrepresented,” the CJI said.
CJI Khanna further said, “Look sometimes, in the course of hearing, we put some questions, you on a tangent saying I am not asking for this or that.” The bench said stray questions raised during hearings should not be “misconstrued” or “exaggerated” by the media.
The lawyer for the PIL petitioner said he was not aware.
“It is all over the country…Obviously you (PIL petitioner) went to the media. There is no question of them finding out what is happening in the court. Some stray observation of the CJI… and you blew (it) out of proportion,” said Justice Kumar.
There are journalists who track hearings, the lawyer said.
It has now posted the plea in the week commencing January 27, 2025.
The plea said the practice violated the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it discriminated against devotees unable to afford the fee.
The petition also raised several concerns about the additional fee charged for an expedited access to temple deities.
The plea said charging fee ranging between Rs 400 and Rs 500 for the “special darshan” privileges created a divide between the affluent devotees and those who were unable to afford such charges, particularly disadvantaged women, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens.
It highlighted despite representations made to the home ministry, only a directive was issued to Andhra Pradesh, while other states like Uttarakhand, UP, and Madhya Pradesh remained unaddressed.
The plea therefore sought a direction to declare the levying of the additional fee violative of the constitutional rights of equality and religious freedom.
It 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.
