Breaking | Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Challenging Maharashtra Govt's Declaration Of Public Holiday On Ram Mandir Consecration Day

The Bombay High Court today dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by four law students opposing Maharashtra government's notification that designates January 22, 2024, as a public holiday to mark the consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

A special bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that in a country of diverse religions, the impugned decision of the State in fact fosters the principle of secularism. Referring to a catena of precedents on the subject of public holidays, the bench said,

"A consistent view has been taken by the Courts that the declaration of holidays is a matter of executive policy including those which are declared considering the requirements of the different religions. Once these are the considerations on broader public interest, such decisions cannot be in any manner labelled as arbitrary decisions. Moreover such decision is taken by the executive in fostering the sentiments as enshrined in the Constitution and in recognition of the secular principles when a holiday is being declared on any religious occasion."

The bench relied on a decision of the Kerala High Court whereby a petition challenging the concession granted by the State to allow students to cover during summer holidays for leaves taken during Ramzaan, was dismissed. It was held that different religions are followed in the State and the concession does not impede the spirit of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

High Court noted that even the Supreme Court has observed that declaration of public holidays is within the realm of executive policy.

The petitioners, students of MNLU Mumbai, GLC, and NIRMA Law School, argued that declaring a public holiday for a religious event contradicts the principles of secularism embedded in the Constitution. They contended that the state should not endorse or favour any specific religion. Citing past Supreme Court judgments, including SR Bommai v. Union of India, they emphasized that any State government deviating from secularism may face action under Article 356 of the Constitution, leading to dismissal.

The State on the other hand, represented by AG Dr. Birendra Saraf, contended that allowing citizens to observe their religious belief cannot be called a violation of the secular belief. "The secular fibre of this country is not fragile," he submitted. He further argued that declaration of holiday is a policy matter and the Courts cannot be called upon to interfere in the same.

Significantly, the Madras High Court also held a special hearing today and disposed of a plea challenging the half-day closure of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry tomorrow on account of the consecration, on an assurance by the Centre that the hospital would remain sufficiently staffed and accept emergency cases even during the half-day closure.

Courtroom Exchange

During the proceedings, the court highlighted that the May 1968 notification of the Central government, which confers powers on the State to declare holidays, is not on record. Justice Kulkarni expressed scepticism about the viability of the prayer challenging this notification without it being on record. The petitioners, however, maintained that their primary relief sought was the quashing of the 2024 notification, and they requested time until the next hearing to provide the earlier notification. Significantly the petitioner pointed out that the 1968 notification was not available when they checked on the government website. 

The petition alleged political motivation behind the notification, suggesting a connection to the upcoming 2024 parliamentary elections. It stated that consecration is scheduled just before the elections and highlighted that the construction of mosque on the land allocated to the Sunni Waqf Board as per Supreme Court's directives is yet to start.

Additionally, the petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra government in issuing the notification under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petition, only the central government has the authority to declare public holidays under this provision.

AG Saraf argued that the petition had political overtones. He contended that allowing citizens to observe their religious beliefs through public holidays does not violate secular principles. He said that holidays are declared for other religions as well. The AG cited judgments related to challenges against public holidays, emphasizing that such decisions fall under the realm of executive policy.

Additional Solicitor General, Devang Girish Vyas, echoed concerns about the absence of the notification and questioned why students would object to a holiday. He argued that the matter is within the purview of executive policy decisions.

The petitioners however denied any political agenda. They clarified that their challenge was centred on the state's lack of power to issue the notification and emphasized that they were not against the opening of the temple.

The PIL was filed by law students Shivangi Agarwal, Satyajeet Siddharth Salve, Vedant Gaurav Agrawal, and Khushi Sandeep Bangia.

The court criticized the petitioners' approach, stating that their PIL appeared to be "politically motivated" and "publicity-seeking." The court opined that the petitioners filed the petition casually and without due consideration of basic principles of PIL such as the concept of locus standi.

“Our judicial conscience is shocked…There are other serious statements that are made in the petition. It is difficult for us to believe that law students would have such imagination to make statements like those pointed out”, the court added.

While refraining from issuing costs, the court cautioned the petitioners against filing motivated PILs and stated that the petition was an abuse of the legal process.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment