‘Everyone is equal before God’: VIP darshan in temples wrong and discriminatory, Madras high court says | Chennai News

Mhc.jpg


‘Everyone is equal before God’:  VIP darshan in temples wrong and discriminatory, Madras high court says

CHENNAI: Paid VIP darshan at Hindu temples is wrong and discriminatory, Madras high court remarked on Friday. It said no such practice is followed in churches and mosques.“Let ministers and MLAs not think that they could walk into a temple any time and that God would be waiting for them. Why do we need VIP darshan at all? Everyone is equal before God,” observed a vacation bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan.The bench rejected a submission made by the state’s additional advocate-general, P V Balasubramaniam, that withdrawing paid VIP darshan would cause revenue loss to the temples.The bench was hearing a public interest writ petition seeking to abolish ‘VIP darshan’ and ‘special darshan’ at temples altogether, except in the case of senior citizens, disabled and constitutional authorities.The PIL, filed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad functionary P Chockalingam, sought abolition of the ‘VIP darshan’ culture at temples under the control of HR&CE dept. His counsel, B Jagannath, submitted that the Supreme Court had in the Banke Bihari Temple case said that a committee had to be formed to abolish the special darshan and VIP queue system. A report in that regard was filed by the committee before the Supreme Court last week.During the last hearing, the vacation bench sought to know if the Thirupparankundram temple authorities committed any violation of rules by keeping open the temple beyond the stipulated hours, to ensure that the new minister, R Nirmalkumar, and his associates could have a darshan.On Friday, the govt submitted that no agama rules were violated during the minister’s visit. Recording the submission, the bench observed that ministers should not think that they are above law and deities would be waiting for them. The court then adjourned the case after six weeks for further hearing.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *