On Sunday (21st January), the Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) plea filed by four law students challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to declare a holiday on 22nd January, the day of the consecration ceremony of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
#UPDATE | Bombay High Court dismisses the petition filed by 4 law students challenging state govt notification regarding holiday on 22nd January for Ram Temple Pran Pratishtha ceremony. pic.twitter.com/kaPDhbG4pl
— ANI (@ANI) January 21, 2024
The petitioners contended that the Maharashtra government announced an arbitrary holiday and that it was not within the state government’s authority to do so.
Four law students, Shivangi Agarwal, Satyajeet Salve, Vedant Agrawal, and Khushi Bangia, who are pursuing LL.B at Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Government Law College (GLC), Mumbai, and NIRMA Law University, Gujarat, submitted the petition. They sought the revocation of the notification issued by the Maharashtra government on 19th January.
A special bench comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale of the High Court rejected the plea filed by the petitioners who had approached the court against the Maharashtra government order, stating that the PIL was a publicity-oriented petition and that the State’s exercise of power is not arbitrary but in accordance with secular principles. “The consistent view of courts is that such decision falls in the realm of executive decision,” the Court ruled.
“It is difficult for us to believe that law students who are yet to enter this profession have made such allegations as mentioned in the petition. We have no doubt that this PIL has been filed for extraneous reasons. It is as rightly contended to us it appears to be absolutely frivolous and does not deserve the attention of the court,” the Bombay High Court bench observed.
The Court further noted that, notwithstanding the petitioners’ challenge to a 1968 Central government notification delegating powers to States to declare such holidays, the notification was not attached to the petition.
“By the notification, the government has declared January 22 as a public holiday in Maharashtra on the occasion of Ram Mandir Pran Partisthan Din. At the outset, we can observe that the notification of May 1968 issued by Home Affairs is challenged and the same is not on record. This notification confers power on State government (to declare holiday),” the bench stated.
The court cautioned the petitioners against pursuing such issues through a PIL but did not impose costs.
Dismissing the plea, the court said, “We intend to caution the petitioners to be more careful when they take it upon themselves to espouse such cause. For these reasons, there is no doubt that this PIL is an abuse of the process of law and we intend to dismiss it with exemplary costs. We refrain ourselves from imposing costs and hope the petitioners will be more careful when appearing in person.”
The court also slammed the students for questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhay title suit judgment of 2019. “The petitioners have not even left a single stone unturned where statements are made questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court in deciding the case. Our judicial conscience is shocked when we see such statements on Supreme Court and more particularly the overtone of a motive which appears to be far far bonafide and in fact appears to be a statement which no prudent litigant would made against the basic secular fabric of this country,” the Court stated in its order.
The High Court also questioned how the petition was reported in media before it was heard.
Appearing for the state govt, Advocate General Birendra Saraf said that it is a policy decision that cannot be subject to judicial scrutiny. He added that declaring a holiday for a religious practice or ceremony is not arbitrary and does not affect the secular fabric of the country. He noted that holidays are regularly declared for religious events, and it does not violate the secular principles of the state. The secular fibre of this country is not fragile and they are known to have celebrated many occasion and this is an occasion where people want to celebrate. But this declaring of holiday is not arbitrary or unconstitutional,” the AG said.
Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas wondered in the court why students were objecting to a holiday. He said in a lighter vein, given that students like holidays.
In a similar order in a special hearing on Sunday, the Madras High Court dismissed a petition against the decision to announce a half-day holiday by Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry on January 22 on the occasion of the inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. The court said that there was no merit in the plea because emergency services will continue even during holiday.
Ram Mandir Pran Pratistha
The consecration ceremony on 22nd January is set to be a grand affair, with a series of rituals and traditions taking place to mark the Pran Pratishtha of Ram Lalla and the official opening of the temple in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Over 7,000 guests comprising 3,000 VIPs have received invites from the Ram Mandir Trust. There will also be an invitation sent to the families of the karsevaks who lost their lives in the temple movement.
