AP High Court hears arguments against VIP break darshan at Tirumala

Hyderabad: The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice C Praveen Kumar and Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy heard arguments against the grant of VIP break darshan at Tirumala.

Advocate Umesh Chandra PVG submitted before the court that the grant of VIP break darshan was in flagrant violation of Article 25 of the Constitution which guarantees right to freedom of religion to every citizen.

The advocate further contended that the VIP break darshan has been categorized into L1, L2 and L3 by neither defining the terms nor providing rationale for their definition.

He also informed the court that the government can impose restrictions on the freedom of religion of an individual only on three grounds i.e, morality, health and public order and questioned the government on which of the aforementioned grounds did the VIP darshan was granted .

He also read out relevant excerpts from the Supreme Court's Sabarimala Judgment and submitted to the court that right to worship is inherent in right to freedom of religion and therefore cannot be comprised.

He further added that the legislation, Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Endowments Act, sanction only two grounds, custom and usage, on which the Executive officer of TTD can exercise his authority pertaining to darshan and any other ground other than the two would be tantamount to excessive use of power.

After hearing the aruments, the bench directed the counsel for TTD, Lalitha to submit to the court data pertaining to L1 ,L 2 and L3 darshan and posted the matter after lunch.

Subsequent to lunch, the counsel representing TTD submitted information other than what was sought for and requested the bench to provide more time for seeking information from the competent authorities.

Advocate representing the petitioner submitted post lunch that categorisation of people for break darshan had also become a breeding ground for corruption.

He further averred that in a secular State like India where the principle of positive secularism was at play, the State can interfere only with the administrative and financial aspects but not with the essential religious practices and the grant of VIP darshan militates against the very core of secularism.

The bench posted the matter to Wednesday for further hearing.