New Delhi, Jan. 28 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition challenging the discretion exercised by the district collector in allowing "VIPs" to enter the garbhagriha (sanctum sanctorum) of the Shri Mahakaleshwar temple in Ujjain, observing that courts cannot decide who should be permitted to enter a temple and raising doubts over the justiciability of such pleas. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea after a brief hearing and permitted him to make a representation to the competent authorities instead. "In the presence of Mahakaal, nobody can be a VIP," the bench remarked during the hearing, while cautioning against courts stepping into matters of temple administration. "Whether it should be allowed or should not be, it's not for the Court to decide. We are on the question of justiciability," the bench said. The petition, filed and argued through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain by Ujjain resident Darpan Awasthi, assailed the practice of granting special access to select devotees to enter the innermost precincts of the temple for performing rituals, while denying similar access to ordinary devotees. The plea challenged an August 28, 2025 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that dismissed a public interest litigation on the issue. Jain argued before the top court that the absence of uniform guidelines governing entry into the garbhagriha resulted in arbitrary discrimination. "I am asking for uniform guidelines and a consistent policy for allowing people inside the sanctum sanctorum," he said. "Citizens cannot be discriminated or differentiated on the basis of VIP status. If a person is entering the garbhagriha because of the recommendation of a collector, then an ordinary devotee visiting Mahakal should also have a right to enter and offer water to the deity," Jain said. The bench, however, expressed some concern. "If courts start regulating who should be allowed to enter or who should not be, it's too much for the courts," observed the court, adding that such decisions were better left to authorities "at the helm of affairs"....