38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, July 23, 2024
Judiciary

Petition filed in the Allahabad High Court challenges the 'Sugam Darshan' System in Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple, claims it is a 'way of collecting money'

By Tmanna      08 October, 2021 04:40 PM      0 Comments
Petition filed in the Allahabad High Court challenges the 'Sugam Darshan' System in Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple, claims it is a 'way of collecting money'

A petition has been filed in Allahabad High Court challenging the 'Sugam Darshan' system, which was launched in 2018 and allows anyone to become a 'VIP' (Very Important Person) on amount of payment for the purpose of darshan' in the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Banaras, Uttar Pradesh.

It states that, "this queue-less, hassle-free Darshan system is infact nothing but a way of collecting money."

The petitioner, Gajendra Singh Yadav, a D.Phil. (Law) student at Allahabad University, states that the 'Sugam Darshan' system is not intended for Divyangs or disabled people.

He has claimed that if the Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple trust/board was willing to provide convenience for physically disabled people, there would have been no need for payment.

He further contended that this service should be provided for free to disabled people because similar facilities are provided to disabled people/divyangs in all government or public buildings, offices, and institutions, etc. 

According to the petition, 'Sugam Darshan' costs Rs. 300.00, Rudrabhishek 'Arti' costs Rs. 450-57100, Bhog costs Rs. 180-700, Rs. 3000, Shringari costs Rs. 5000, and Lakhbilwarchana costs Rs. 8660 as stated on the official website portal of Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple trust.

The petitioner claims that, while the system of various types of darshans has been in place at Kashi Vishwanath Temple for many years, he is drawing the court's attention to a new system of Darshan that allows anyone to become a 'VIP' (Very Important Person) for a fee and discriminates against similarly situated people with less money.

As a result, he noted that, according to the temple website, if this 'Sugam Darshan' system was created for the ease and convenience of pilgrims who come for Darshan, then creating a 'Pay Darshan' option cannot be allowed. 

The petitioner has also questioned the majority of the time the barricade around the 'Shiv Linga' in the temple. He claims that the barricade is opened on occasion, but only for a short period of time, and that the majority of the time it remains intact.

According to the petitioner, because of the barricade, devotees are forced to pour water (jal), milk (doodh), and other offerings only from above the Shiv Linga without touching it. He also claims that 'Sparsh Darshan' is only available to a select few.

The petitioner has claimed that in the worship or offering of 'Lord Shiv,' 'Sparsh Darshan' is considered to be very important and also falls under the category of 'Right to Religion' under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioner has also complained about the humiliation endured by devotees. He claims that those in charge of the temple's administration push devotees out shortly after entering the 'Garbha Griha' (Sanctum Santorum).

The petitioner has further sought to draw the court's attention to the current system in which no milk or sweets are permitted from outside the temple for security reasons, and point out that shops within the temple's boundaries sell milk and sweets at significantly higher prices, such as milk worth Rs. 28 for Rs. 50-60 and sweets at Rs. 400 per kg rather than the outside rate of Rs. 280 per kg.

Alleging that known persons or relatives of persons who are members of the above Trust or Temple are given preferential treatment by granting 'darshan' out of turn to them, the petitioner further stated that this is discrimination against other devotees.

CASE Gajendra Singh Yadav v. State of UP and Ors.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

neet-ug-sc-asks-iit-delhi-to-apprise-it-of-correct-answer-of-a-question-where-two-options-are-found-as-correct
Trending Judiciary
NEET-UG: SC asks IIT-Delhi to apprise it of correct answer of a question where two options are found as correct

SC asks IIT-Delhi to determine correct answer for NEET-UG question with two correct options, report due by 12 PM Tuesday; court to hear further on re-test plea.

23 July, 2024 09:26 AM
2021-lakhimpur-kheri-violence-sc-grants-regular-bail-to-ashish-mishra-son-of-ex-union-minister-ajay-mishra
Trending Judiciary
2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence: SC grants regular bail to Ashish Mishra, son of ex Union Minister Ajay Mishra

SC grants regular bail to Ashish Mishra, son of ex-Union Minister, in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case involving the death of eight people.

23 July, 2024 11:02 AM

TOP STORIES

state-govt-has-got-no-power-to-tinker-with-list-of-scheduled-castes-supreme-court
Trending Judiciary
State govt has got no power to tinker with list of Scheduled Castes: Supreme Court [Read Judgement]

The Supreme Court ruled that state governments lack the authority to modify the Scheduled Castes lists, a power reserved exclusively for Parliament under Article 341.

17 July, 2024 09:31 AM
sc-asks-telangana-govt-to-replace-judge-in-commission-of-inquiry-into-power-pact-by-previous-govt
Trending Judiciary
SC asks Telangana govt to replace judge in Commission of Inquiry into power pact by previous govt

SC directs Telangana govt to replace Justice L Narasimha Reddy in Commission of Inquiry probing former CM KCR's alleged power sector irregularities.

17 July, 2024 09:40 AM
centre-notifies-appointments-justice-n-kotiswar-singh-justice-mahadevan-as-sc-judges
Trending Judiciary
Centre notifies appointments Justice N Kotiswar Singh, Justice Mahadevan as SC judges

Centre notifies appointments of Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice R Mahadevan as Supreme Court judges, marking the first SC judge from Manipur.

17 July, 2024 09:57 AM
imprisonment-till-rising-of-court-not-proper-sentence-for-serious-offence-of-bigamy-sc
Trending Judiciary
Imprisonment till rising of court not proper sentence for serious offence of bigamy: SC [Read Judgement]

The Supreme Court ruled that “imprisonment till the rising of the court" is not appropriate for bigamy, a serious offence, stressing the need for proportionate punishment.

17 July, 2024 10:00 AM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email