The Madras High Court on Thursday sought the response of the Tamil Nadu government and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to a plea seeking abolition of special paid ticket darshan and VIP darshan in temples under the Department’s control [Chockalingam Vs Additional Secretary].
A Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan was hearing a plea filed by P Chokalingam, who described himself as the President of Vishva Hindu Parishad, North Tamil Nadu.
The petitioner moved the Court seeking a direction to abolish paid and VIP darshan, except for certain categories of devotees such as differently-abled persons, senior citizens, pregnant women, artistes serving temples, newly married couples, heads of State, constitutional authorities, devotees performing rituals, donors and litigants who have fought for temple causes.
The petitioner also sought a direction to the HR&CE Department to provide chairs in every temple for senior citizens.
The petitioner contended that charging devotees for faster darshan amounts to discrimination on the basis of class and economic status.
As per the petitioner, access to God cannot depend on whether a devotee has the money to pay for a special ticket.
“Money cannot be the barrier or tool to determine how to meet one’s maker,” the petition said.
According to the petition, there are around 36,000 temples under the HR&CE Department in Tamil Nadu.
Neither the HR&CE Act nor the Temple Entry Authorisation Act permits the State to create a system where those who can pay are allowed quicker access to the deity, it was pointed out.
The petitioner alleged that paid darshan forces ordinary devotees to wait in long queues for hours, while those who pay amounts such as ₹300, ₹400 or ₹500 are allowed quicker entry.
The petitioner also objected to the Department allegedly justifying the system as a form of “Dravida Dharma”. He argued that such a concept has no basis in Hindu scriptures or temple traditions and has instead created a hierarchy among devotees.
The petitioner claimed that special paid darshan is a recent innovation introduced after 1967 and that there is no legal basis for continuing it. He also alleged that the practice amounts to commercialisation of worship and violates constitutional principles of equality.
The plea was filed through advocate Jagannath.