'Abuse of law': High Court rejects plea against holiday for Ram Mandir event

The Bombay High Court on Saturday dismissed the plea seeking to quash the state holiday to observe Ram Temple opening on January 22.

The Bombay High Court on Sunday rejected the public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the Maharashtra government's order of declaring January 22 as a 'public holiday' on account of Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha ceremony in Ayodhya.

Having taken up the plea on an urgent hearing, the court dismissed it as an "abuse of law". The court also underlined that the call for a state/public holiday falls under the jurisdiction of the government and not the judiciary.

Four law students had filed a plea before the Bombay High Court, challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to declare January 22 as a public holiday.

The bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale rejected the plea, however, refrained from imposing any costs as the petitioners were parties in person who are students.

"Statements made in the petition show that the intention of the petitioners is something else and is filed for extraneous and other motives. We cannot be unmindful and overlook such proceedings coming before us. We intend to caution the petitioners to be more careful and circumspect when they take it upon themselves to espouse such cause which are purported to be in the public interest," the court held.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) comes after the Maharashtra government declared a public holiday on January 22, to observe the 'Pran Pratishtha' of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

Emphasising that the consecration of a temple is an essential religious practice associated with Hinduism, the petition argues that it should not be a concern of the government.

The bench noted that a consistent stand of the courts had been that when it comes to declaration of holidays it is within the policy realm of the government.

"The consistent view of the courts is that such a decision falls in the realm of executive decision," the bench noted.

The bench agreed with state of Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf's submission that the petition had political overtones.

"The petitioners have not even left a single stone unturned when 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 the Supreme Court and, more particularly, the overtones of a motive which appears to be far bonafide and in fact appears to be a statement which no prudent litigant would make against the basic secular fabric of this country," the court order read.

Meanwhile, the plea, now rejected, had argued that public holidays should be reserved for commemorating patriotic personalities or historical figures, not for celebrating the consecration of a temple to appease a particular section of society or religious community. The plea stressed that public holidays should be carefully considered and not be declared arbitrarily for religious events.

Published By:
Srishti Jha
Published On:
Jan 21, 2024