HC dismisses law students’ plea against January 22 public holiday

The Bombay High Court rejected a public interest litigation challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to declare a public holiday for the Ram Mandir Pran pratishtha ceremony in Ayodhya. The court dismissed the petition as politically motivated and stated that such decisions fall under public policy and are beyond judicial interference. The court emphasized that decisions on public holidays are within the executive domain and align with secular principles. The petitioners argued that government participation in religious events contradicted secular principles.

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Sunday rejected a public interest litigation filed by four law students challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to declare a public holiday on January 22 for the Ram Mandir Pran pratishtha ceremony in Ayodhya. The court labelled the petition as ‘politically motivated’ and a ‘publicity interest litigation.’

Mumbai, India – Jan 21, 2024: Participants run during the TATA Mumbai Marathon 2024, in Mumbai, India, on Sunday, Jan 21, 2024. (Photo by Bhushan Koyande/HT Photo)

A bench of justice GS Kulkarni and justice Neela Gokhale dismissed the petition, citing the consistent stance of courts that such declarations fall under public policy, deeming it beyond judicial interference. The court emphasised that decisions on public holidays are within the executive domain, stating, “The consistent view of courts is that such a decision falls in the realm of executive decision.”

The court, while cautioning against misusing Public Interest Litigation (PIL), highlighted that such decisions align with secular principles. However, it refrained from levying any costs on the petitioners.

The law students, Shivangi Agarwal, Satyajeet Salve, Vedant Agarwal, and Khushi Bangia challenged the validity of the Maharashtra government’s notification declaring January 22 a public holiday considering the consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. The petition argued that temple consecration is a religious practice and not a concern of the government, viewing it as an act of identifying with a specific religion.

Students contested government participation in religious events, arguing it contradicted secular principles. They questioned the state’s authority to declare holidays for religious practices, asserting they should be reserved for patriotic or historical events, not religious occasions.

The petition noted the increasing number of temples, expressing concerns about the impracticality of declaring holidays for all consecrations. They questioned the government’s power under the Negotiable Instruments Act and challenged the 2024 notification without presenting the 1968 notification.

The court questioned the challenge’s validity without the 1968 notification, and the petitioners argued the state lacked authority even without it. The advocate general, Birendra Saraf, defended the holiday as an executive decision within the policy realm, asserting it didn’t harm the country’s secular fabric. “Merely declaring holiday for essential practice is arbitrary is an incorrect proposition. The secular fibre of this country is not fragile, and they are known to have celebrated many occasions and this is an occasion where people want to celebrate. “, he submitted.

Despite the petitioners’ claim that this ceremony differed from regular religious festivals, the court dismissed the plea, criticising them for introducing political overtones into their plea.