Ram temple consecration: Bombay High Court junks plea against Maharashtra govt's decision to declare public holiday on Jan 22

File Photo

The Bombay High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by four students challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to declare a public holiday on January 22 for the Ram temple consecration ceremony in Ayodhya.

A bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale dismissed the PIL, deeming it "politically motivated, frivolous, and vexatious." The court urged the students, who had filed the plea, to engage in more meaningful activities and refrained from imposing costs due to their young age.

The Maharashtra government argued that the declaration of a holiday on the eve of Ram temple consecration falls within the executive policy decision and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. The students contended that the decision was an "abuse of power for political purposes" aimed at influencing upcoming parliamentary elections.

The petition, filed by law students Shivangi Agarwal, Satyajeet Salve, Vedant Agarwal, and Khushi Bangia, sought to quash the government order declaring the holiday on Ram temple consecration ceremony day, January 22,

The court criticized the petition, describing it as politically motivated and a "publicity interest litigation." It questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court being challenged in the petition and expressed doubt about the motivations behind the statements in the plea.

The court emphasized that such petitions were a "blatant abuse of law" and should not be kept pending. It further questioned the inclusion of political remarks in the plea and inquired about the motivation behind those statements.

Also read: "Reconstruction of Bharatvarsh", says RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Ram temple consecration

The petition argued that government participation in the consecration of a Hindu temple undermines secular principles, suggesting that public holidays for such events could lead to disruptions in education, finance, governance, and public works.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the Maharashtra government, asserted that declaring holidays for religious events is a standard practice, allowing citizens to observe their religious practices.

He argued that such holidays are not exclusive to one community but are declared for all religious communities. The court's dismissal of the PIL underscores the government's prerogative in making executive decisions regarding public holidays. (With inputs from agencies)