Ram Mandir, Ayodhya
The Bombay High Court on Sunday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by four law students challenging the decision of the Maharashtra government to declare a holiday on January 22, the day of Ram Mandir inauguration at Ayodhya [Shivangi Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr].
At a special sitting held on Sunday, a division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale said that PIL was a publicity oriented petition and that the consistent stand of courts when it comes to declaration of holidays is that the same is within the policy realm of the government.
“The consistent view of courts is that such decision falls in the realm of executive decision,” the Court ruled.
Further, courts have frequently held that such exercise of power by the State is not arbitrary but in consonance with the secular principles.
“The consistent views of different courts that holidays are declared as a matter of policy, the different religions cannot be arbitrary but it is in consonance with the secular principles. Petitioners have failed to make out a case of arbitrariness and that State government has no power to issue notification,” the bench held.
Pertinently, the Court said that the petition was not supported by adequate material.
The Court also castigated the petitioners for what it termed as questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court.
“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.
It appears to be a petition that is politically motivated and publicity interest litigation and a glare for publicity seems to be apparent from the tenor of the petition and the arguments made in open court, the bench said.
“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 court,” the order stated.
The Court also noted that though the petitioners were challenging a Central government notification of 1968 which delegates powers to States to declare such holidays, the said notification was not appended to the petition.
“By the notification, the government has declared January 22 as a public holiday in Maharashtra on 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 Court said.
It cautioned the petitioners against pursuing such issues by way of PIL but refrained from imposing costs.
“We intend to caution the petitioners to be more careful when they take upon themselves to espouse such cause. For these reasons there is no doubt that this PIL is abuse of process of law and we intend to dismiss with exemplary costs. We refrain ourselves from imposing costs and hope the petitioners will be more careful when appearing in person,” the bench said while dismissing the plea.
The petition was filed by four law students, Shivangi Agarwal, Satyajeet Salve, Vedant Agrawal, Khushi Bangia, pursuing LL.B from Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Government Law College(GLC), Mumbai and NIRMA Law University, Gujarat.
They sought quashing of the notification issued by the Maharashtra government on January 19.
As per the plea, the State government notification amounted to expending from the government exchequer for religious purpose which is prohibited under the Constitution.
Pertinently, the plea said that India is a secular State and the government cannot identify itself with any particular religion.
The consecration of a temple is an essential religious practice associated with Hindu religion and cannot be in any manner a concern of the government.
“Any steps taken by the government including declaration of public holiday for celebrating the consecration of a Hindu temple is nothing but an act of identifying with a particular religion,” the plea said.
The petitioners further emphasized that such public holidays would lead to loss of education, financial loss and loss of governance and public work, since schools, banks and government offices would be closed.
“In the absence of legislation conferring power to declare a public holiday on the State governments and without there being guidelines which are secular in nature, such declarations to appease a majority community that too for political purposes would be a sheer abuse of power and would destroy secular fabric of India,” the petition underscored.
The petitioners also challenged the notification of 1968 issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs that empowers State to exercise powers under the Negotiable Instruments Act to declare public holidays.
The plea said that the said power under the Negotiable Instruments Act is vested with the Central government and it could not have been delegated to States.
“A bare perusal of Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes it clear that it intended to bestow the power to declare the public holidays with the Central government. The language used in the explanation to section 25 is rather clear and does not have any ambiguity…Thus, such an express power of the Central government could not have been delegated in favour of the State government,” it was submitted.
When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the Court noted that though the petitioners were challenging the notification issued by the Central government in 1968, the same was not annexed to the petition.
“You cannot refer to the notification pertaining to Union Territories. It is issued in the independent power under Article 329. You have to refer to the one that gives powers to state government. Your prayer is challenging the notification when the 1968 notification is not on record. How can you challenge it without enclosing it?” the Court asked.
“Even if there is no notification, the Act itself does not provide power to State government and State cannot declare holiday,” one of the petitioners Shivangi Agarwal submitted.
“If the notification is challenged on understanding of a notification which is not on record then they can file a fresh petition. This notification has been on record for 25 years, all States have it. But if there are enthusiastic then they can file a fresh petition,” Advocate General (AG) Birendra Saraf submitted on behalf of the State government.
On the merits of the declaration of holiday by the State, the Advocate General said that it is a policy decision which cannot be subject to judicial scrutiny.
“So far as 2024 declaration of holiday is concerned, that is something which falls within the executive policy decision. That is something which does not fall within judicial scrutiny. Challenge is on the ground that it is arbitrary. On what grounds they say arbitrary, that it is for a particular event. The consecration event is an essential religious practice. Once this is acknowledged, it cannot be arbitrary,” he said.
The AG further contended that the petition clearly state on what ground the notification was arbitrary,
He further argued that declaring a holiday for a religious practice or ceremony is not arbitrary and does not affect the secular fabric of the country.
“Allowing religious practice cannot be said to be in way of secularism, in fact it is far from that. Because state has from time to time been doing it for various religious practices. Merely declaring holiday for essential practice is arbitrary is incorrect proposition….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 Vyaswho appeared on behalf of Central government, said that since the petitioners have not appended the 1968 notification, it would not be necessary for him to argue the matter.
“There are not challenging 1968 so nothing is left for me. But as a student why would you object you to a holiday,” he said in lighter vein.
In response to the State’s argument that government can declare holidays for religious events, the petitioners submitted that State can declare holidays for major religious festivals but not religious ceremonies.
“Holidays are for festivals. This is a mere ceremony,” it was contended on behalf of the petitioners.
The Court also questioned the petitioners about how the plea came to be reported by the media before the hearing.
“There is an argument that this is politically motivated petition. How is it that before we could read, the contents of the petition are in media,” the bench said.
“We have no idea about this. We were in court from afternoon for circulation. We do not know about that,” the petitioner said.
In another special hearing held on Sunday, the Madras High Court dismissed a PIL petition against the decision to give half-day holiday to Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry on January 22.
