In a special hearing on Sunday, the Bombay High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by four law students challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to declare a public holiday on January 22 for the Pran Pratishtha ceremony at the Ram Lalla Mandir in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners argued that the holiday declared by the Maharashtra government was arbitrary and not within the state government’s authority.
A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale held the special hearing to address the PIL filed by four law students from Maharashtra and Gujarat. The court observed that the petition was “politically motivated, frivolous, and vexatious” and recommended that the students use their time for more meaningful endeavors.
The court stated, “We have no doubt that this is an abuse of the process of law. Such proceedings cannot be kept pending and are required to be dismissed with exemplary cost. However, we refrain ourselves from imposing cost with the hope the petitioner in the future be more careful when they attend to appear in person in a PIL.”
The PIL was filed against the Maharashtra government’s decision to declare a public holiday for the Ayodhya event on January 22. The petitioners claimed that such a public holiday could not be declared to appease a particular section of society or a religious community. They argued that public holidays should be declared for commemorating patriotic personalities or historic figures, not for religious celebrations.
The Maharashtra government countered the petition by asserting that declaring a holiday falls within the executive policy decision of the government and should not be subject to judicial scrutiny. The government argued that it was well within its right to declare a holiday for the Ayodhya event.
The court, in its observation, mentioned that the PIL appeared to be politically motivated and aimed at publicity. The bench said, “The petition has political overtones, and it appears to be a petition that is politically motivated and a publicity interest litigation. A glare for publicity seems to be apparent from the tenor of the petition and the arguments made in the open court.”
The court emphasized that the petition contained serious statements, and it found it difficult to believe that law students would make such statements. It advised the petitioners to be more careful when filing PILs in the future.
The plea filed by Shivangi Agarwal, Satyajeet Salve, Vedant Agarwal, and Khushi Bangia sought the quashing of the government order declaring a holiday on January 22. The court deemed the petition frivolous, vexatious, and politically motivated. It also questioned the inclusion of political remarks in the plea and asked about the motivation behind such statements.
The court’s dismissal of the PIL comes amid heightened political and legal debates surrounding the Ayodhya event. The decision to declare a public holiday for the Pran Pratishtha ceremony has been a subject of contention, with critics arguing that it sets a precedent for religious events to influence public holidays. The Bombay High Court’s strong remarks against the petition underscore the need for careful consideration and genuine public interest in filing PILs, discouraging politically motivated or frivolous litigation.
