The Madras High Court has issued a directive to the Tamil Nadu government and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to respond to a petition challenging the practice of paid darshan and VIP access in temples administered by the department. The case, titled Chockalingam Vs Additional Secretary, was heard by a bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan.
P Chokalingam, identified as the President of the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s North Tamil Nadu chapter, filed the petition. He seeks to terminate paid and VIP darshan privileges, advocating for their continuation solely for specific groups such as differently-abled individuals, senior citizens, pregnant women, temple artistes, newlyweds, heads of state, constitutional authorities, devotees conducting rituals, donors, and litigants involved in temple-related legal matters. Additionally, the petitioner has requested that the HR&CE Department provide seating arrangements for senior citizens in all temples.
The petitioner argues that charging devotees for expedited darshan discriminates against those based on economic standing and class. He emphasizes that spiritual access should not be contingent upon one’s financial capability. “Monetary barriers should not dictate one’s approach to their deity,” asserts the petition.
The petition highlights that there are approximately 36,000 temples under the HR&CE Department in Tamil Nadu. According to the petitioner, neither the HR&CE Act nor the Temple Entry Authorisation Act authorizes the state to implement a tiered access system based on payment. The practice allegedly causes ordinary devotees to endure prolonged waiting periods while those who can afford ₹300, ₹400, or ₹500 are granted expedited entry.
The petitioner disputes the Department’s justification of the system as a form of “Dravida Dharma,” asserting that this concept lacks foundation in Hindu scriptures or temple traditions and has fostered an unwarranted hierarchy among devotees. Furthermore, he contends that the introduction of paid darshan, which began post-1967, has no legal footing and constitutes a commercialization of worship, infringing upon constitutional principles of equality.
The legal representation for the petitioner is provided by Advocate Jagannath. The court’s decision to seek responses from the state reflects the ongoing debate about the balance between tradition, accessibility, and commercialization within religious practices.
