‘Publicity Interest Litigation’ is frivolous, vexatious, politically motivated and a blatant abuse of law
Bombay High Court dismisses a petition by four students of law to quash the government order declaring a holiday on January 22 on the occasion of Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha, questions how the media knew of petition before the court, writes Manu Shrivastava
The Bombay High court on 21 January 2024, dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by four law students against the Maharashtra government's decision declaring a public holiday on January 22, on the occasion of the Ram Temple consecration ceremony in Ayodhya.
While holding a special hearing on Sunday for a Public Interest Litigation filed by four law students from Maharashtra and Gujarat, a bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale, noted the petition was 'politically motivated, frivolous and vexatious'.
 |
| The Bombay High Court building (File pic) |
The bench said the court would normally while dismissing such a petition impose an exemplary cost on the petitioners, it was refraining from doing so as the petitioners are young students and hence a word of caution would suffice.
The Maharashtra government, on its part, argued that to declare a holiday falls within the executive policy decision of the government and should not fall within judicial scrutiny.
The petitioners maintained the State Government's decision to declare a public holiday, keeping an eye over the upcoming parliamentary elections, was a 'gross abuse of power for political purposes.'
Filed by Shivangi Agarwal, Satyajeet Salve, Vedant Agarwal and Khushi Bangia, the petition sought that the HC quash the government order declaring a holiday on January 22.
'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 bench said.
The court said the petitioners have also questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court in an order passed in another matter and that had shaken 'our judicial conscience'.
'We have no doubt that this PIL has been filed for extraneous reasons. It appears to be absolutely frivolous and vexatious and does not deserve the attention of court,' the bench said. There was no doubt that such petitions were a 'blatant abuse of law' and cannot be kept pending, it added.
'As pointed out by the respondent (Maharashtra government), there are some statements about political agenda in the plea that are political in nature...some are very reckless statements. On whose motivation or at whose instance have those statements been included in the plea?' the bench asked.
The HC also questioned the petitioners as to how the media came to know of the petition even before it was placed before the court.
The petition said the consecration of a temple is an essential religious practice associated with the Hindu religion and therefore cannot be in any manner a concern of the government.
Any step 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 claimed.
And that, such a public holiday could be declared to commemorate a patriotic personality or historic figure but not to celebrate the consecration of a temple to appease a particular section of the society or religious community.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf, appearing for the Maharashtra government, argued that to declare a holiday falls within the executive policy decision of the government and should not fall within judicial scrutiny.
"The petition proceeds on a wrong footing that the decision was arbitrary. Most of the public holidays are for religious events.
“This allows citizens to carry out their religious practices. And such holidays are not declared for only one community. It is done for all religious communities," Saraf said.
During the proceedings, the court highlighted that the May 1968 notification of the Central government, which confers powers on the State to declare holidays, was not put on record. Justice Kulkarni expressed scepticism about the viability of the prayer challenging this notification without it being on record.
The court also maintained that the principles of locus standi must always be upheld in case of a PIL. This has been laid down, time and again, even by the Supreme Court. And held, the present PIL appears to be filed for extraneous reasons and was far from bonafide.
To receive regular updates and notifications, follow The Draft News:
