Temple entry fee sparks rights row
The state government’s recent imposition of an entry fee on devotees visiting the revered Churdhar Temple in Sirmaur district has triggered a wider debate on the intersection of environmental conservation, religious freedom and constitutional rights. Located at an altitude of 11,965 feet, Churdhar is not only the highest peak in the outer Himalayas but also a deeply significant spiritual destination for communities across Himachal Pradesh and neighbouring Uttarakhand.
Under the new directive, the state is levying Rs 20 per individual from pilgrims residing outside Shimla, Solan and Sirmaur districts. Visitors from other Indian states are charged Rs 50, while foreign nationals are required to pay Rs 100. Additionally, horses and mules used for transport during the pilgrimage are taxed Rs 100 per trip.
The decision has provoked widespread criticism from the public, opposition parties and religious leaders. Leader of the Opposition and former Chief Minister Jai Ram Thakur, along with BJP’s national spokespersons Sambit Patra and Prem Shukla, have condemned the policy. Critics argue that imposing a monetary burden on religious worship contravenes both cultural traditions and constitutional guarantees.
In response, the CM and Forest Department officials have maintained that the policy was in alignment with environmental directives issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. They cited observations made in Suleman vs. Union of India (CWP No. 2369/2018), particularly in relation to waste management and ecological sustainability in high-traffic trekking routes.
However, advocate Vinod Chauhan, practising before the Himachal Pradesh High Court have challenged this interpretation, clarified that the court’s suggestions—recorded in its order dated July 18, 2024—were limited to trekkers and contained no directive to impose entry fee on pilgrims. “No judicial mandate requires devotees to pay to access religious sites,” Chauhan noted. “Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom to profess and propagate one’s religion. Denying access to pilgrims on the grounds of non-payment is inconsistent with these protections.”
The temple, dedicated to Lord Shiva and regional deity Shirgul Maharaj, holds particular religious significance for residents of Shimla, Solan, Sirmaur and the Jaunsar-Bawar tribal region in Uttarakhand. Speaking to The Tribune, 97-year-old local resident Mani Ram Parashar described longstanding traditions of offering the first yield of crops, dairy products and income to the deity. “These offerings are acts of devotion, not tourism. Taxing faith is neither just nor acceptable,” he said.
From Jaunsar-Bawar, community representative Chand Ram Rajguru expressed concern over the financial strain such a fee would impose on tribal pilgrims. “Often, hundreds travel together to Churdhar during key festivals. At Rs 50 per head, a single day’s pilgrimage could cost over Rs 50,000—an unaffordable sum for our community,” he said.
Environmental advocates have also weighed in, calling for a more calibrated policy. “Charging tourists and commercial establishments is defensible from a conservation standpoint,” said Tulsi Ram Chauhan, a social worker engaged in environmental awareness in the region. “However, placing the same financial obligation on religious pilgrims undermines the intent of both environmental stewardship and cultural sensitivity. Alternatives such as regulated accommodation facilities and revenue from open auctions of commercial stalls could be explored.”
Himachal Tribune