“All Are Equal Before Mahakal”: Supreme Court Rejects Petition for VIP Entry into Mahakal Mandir Sanctum

Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh: The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition seeking VIP access for certain individuals into the sanctum sanctorum (garbhagriha) of the famous Mahakaleshwar Jyotirlinga Temple in Ujjain. The court emphasized that “all are equal before Mahakal” and clarified that the temple administration and the district collector alone have the authority to decide who may enter the sanctum.

Court Defers to Temple Administration
During the hearing, the Supreme Court instructed the petitioner to address the temple authorities directly. The bench stated that no person holds a special status in front of Mahakal and that internal rules regarding sanctum entry fall under the jurisdiction of the temple committee and district administration, not the judiciary.

Petitioner’s Claim
The petitioner had alleged that for the past two and a half years, general devotees were denied entry into the garbhagriha due to COVID-19 restrictions, while VIPs and influential individuals were allegedly allowed entry, bypassing the rules. The petitioner argued that this practice violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

High Court Had Also Rejected Petition
Earlier, in August 2025, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had similarly dismissed a petition on the same matter, holding that decisions regarding entry to the sanctum rest solely with the district collector and temple administration, and the courts could not interfere.

Garbhagriha Entry Restricted Since Pandemic
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, access to the sanctum has been restricted for general devotees, who can only view Mahakal from the outer areas of the temple. However, occasional reports of VIP entry have caused discontent among common worshippers.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, petitioners must now engage directly with temple authorities to seek any changes, while the ruling reinforces that judicial intervention in internal religious management and access policies is limited. Experts say the judgment may increase pressure on the temple administration to implement its rules transparently and fairly.