Maharashtra Government's Ram Temple holiday notification upheld, PIL dismissed with costs for abuse of process

The Bombay HC dismissed a PIL challenging the Maharashtra Government's notification declaring 22 January 2024 as a public holiday for Shri Ram-Lalla Pran-Pratishtha Din celebrations. The court found petitioners failed to establish that the State Government acted unlawfully, noting the notification was issued under valid authority pursuant to Central Government notification dated 8 May 1968. The court characterized the petition as a patent abuse of process, containing unwarranted statements and untenable contentions raised casually despite judicial warnings. The PIL was dismissed in limine with exemplary costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the notification declaring a public holiday.
2. Allegations of arbitrariness and violation of constitutional principles.
3. Legality and authority of the State Government to issue the notification.
4. Political motivations and abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Summary:

1. Challenge to the Notification Declaring a Public Holiday:
The petitioners, law students from Maharashtra and Gujarat, challenged the notification dated 19 January 2024 by the Government of Maharashtra declaring 22 January 2024 as a public holiday for "Shri Ram-Lalla Pran-Pratishtha Din." The notification was issued under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on powers conferred by a Central Government notification dated 8 May 1968.

2. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Violation of Constitutional Principles:
The petitioners argued that the notification was arbitrary, against public interest, and violated secular principles enshrined in the Constitution. They contended that the decision was ultra vires Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and violated Articles 14, 21, 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution. They relied on several Supreme Court decisions to support their claims.

3. Legality and Authority of the State Government to Issue the Notification:
Dr. Saraf, representing the State, argued that the petition should be rejected as the Central Government notification dated 8 May 1968 was not on record, and there were no pleadings on the illegality of the power conferred on the State Government. He asserted that the declaration of holidays is an executive policy decision, not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary grounds are clearly set out. The Court noted that previous decisions by various High Courts and the Supreme Court consistently held that declaring holidays falls within the executive policy realm.

4. Political Motivations and Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
Dr. Saraf and interveners argued that the petition had political overtones and was an abuse of the PIL process. They highlighted that the petition was filed at the last minute, moved on a holiday, and contained reckless and politically motivated statements. The Court agreed, noting that the petition was frivolous, vexatious, and lacked bonafides. It emphasized that PIL should not be used for publicity or political gains and must be pursued with clean hands and objective intentions.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. It concluded that the declaration of holidays is a matter of executive policy and not arbitrary or against constitutional principles. The Court refrained from imposing costs, considering the petitioners were students, but cautioned them to be more careful in future legal pursuits.

---