Bombay High Court Questions ASI On Steps Taken To Prevent Paid 'VIP Darshan' At Trimbakeshwar Temple

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja was hearing a PIL seeking directions to abolish the VIP entry fees from the North Gate of the Trimbakeshwar Temple at Trimbak, Nashik.

The court directed the ASI to file its reply while posting the matter to January 16, 2022 for further hearing. It also issued notice to the respondents including the Trust.

Senior Advocate Ram Apte and Government Pleader P. P. Kakade appeared for ASI and state government, respectively.

Advocate Rameshwar Gite for the petitioner argued that the Trust has no authority to charge fees as the land and temple is owned by the ASI. He submitted that after several complaints were made by the petitioner, the ASI had issued 12 letters to the Trust asking them to stop charging entry fees.

After this, the court asked Senior Advocate Ram Apte to answer what the ASI has done to implement the instructions issued in the letters.

A co-ordinate bench of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. G. Dige had earlier asked the petitioner to show how the ₹200 VIP entry fees is unlawful in the previous hearing.

The petition, filed by one Lalita Shinde, contends that the Trust is violating Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 by charging the entry fee. Further, such policy discriminates between poor and rich people, according to the petition.

The temple is an ancient monument requiring protection as per the Ancient Monument Preservation Act 1904, the plea states.

The petition contends that the Trust has discriminatory policies allowing special privileges and opportunities to persons paying a fee and/or buying a ticket to visit the temple. The schemes of darshan made by the Trust are completely unconstitutional and the Trust is discriminating among the people in terms of money, the petition claims.

The petition prays for directions to abolish the practice of payment of fees for "better opportunity to worship the deity from a shorter distance, to pray for longer duration, and to stay at a closer proximity during procession of prayers by the priest" in comparison to others who do not pay the fee.

Case no. – PIL/147/2022

Case Title – Lalita Sandeep Shinde v. Archaeological Survey of India and Ors.