Bombay HC pulls up petitioners, who challenged holiday on 'Pran Pratishtha' ceremony in Ayodhya
Total Views |
Mumbai, Jan 25: Bombay High Court pulls up petitioners, who challenged Maharashtra government decision on announcement of holiday on January 22 for `Pranpratishtha’ ceremony in Ayodhya. It said that petition has political overtone.
“The petition has political overtones. It appears to be a petition politically motivated and, in our opinion, also a publicity interest petition. It appears to be clearly trumpery of the proceedings initiated before the Court”.
This is the observation made by Bombay High Court on Sunday while delivering a judgement on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a group of law students, challenging Maharashtra government decision to announced holiday on January 22 on account of Pranpratishthan ceremony in Ayodhya.
The High Court had passed severe strictures against the petitioners but refrained itself from imposing fine, considering the age of petitioners. The High Court further observed that extraneous consideration and clearly for publicity, which is clear not only from the tenor of the averments made in the petition but also from the arguments canvassed in the open Court.
The case has once again exposed how the constitutional mechanism is misused to oppose any issue, which involves Hindu cause by the vested interests. Several eye brows were raised when hearing was scheduled on Sunday, which is a weekly off for the High Court. However, court was choiceless as January 22 was a Monday. Therefore, it had to scheduled urgent hearing on the day of weekly off. However, HC bench, comprising Justice Dr Neela Gokhale and Justice G S Kulkarni dismissed the petition, passing some remarks against the petitioners.
The petitioners argued that notification on holiday on January 22 was not only against public interest but also against the economic interests of the country. The petitioners also argued that decision on holiday was against the principle of ‘secularism’ in the constitution. Dr Birendra Saraf, Advocate General of Maharashtra opined that declaration of holiday was within the realm of the executive policy. Mentioning some of paragraphs in the petition, Dr Saraf said that the petition has political overtones. He said that the petitioners are causal and quite reckless and is far from bona fide. A group of students had intervened in the petition.
Appearing for them Adv R S Apte and Adv S M Gorwadkar maintained that petition was an abuse of process of law as it has been filed at the last moment. They also questioned the intention of petitioners behind the move, describing it as politically motivated. Lawyer of government and interveners produced various case laws in the High Court and maintained that declaration of holiday was purely an executive discretion. High Court in its ruling maintained that judiciary has always upheld a view in the past that declaration of holiday was an executive decision and has never interfered in it.
HC said, “Moreover such decision is taken by the executive in fostering the sentiments as enshrined in the Constitution and in recognition of the secular principles when a holiday is being declared on any religious occasion. We are therefore, of the considered view that the petitioners have miserably failed to make out a case of any arbitrariness, in the impugned decision of the State Government”. Commenting on the petitioners, HC remarked that approach of petitioners has worried it.
HC said, “ This more particularly, without applying their mind to the principles on the doctrine of locus standi and without appreciating that the Public Interest Litigation is a weapon required to be used with great care and circumspect. The Supreme Court time and again has held that the Courts are required to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. 20. Applying such principles, in our opinion, the petitioners appear to be completely unmindful of such elementary requirements when the canvass of their petition is likely to have wider ramifications. Thus, such petition could not have been moved making unwarranted and untenable statements and raising contentions in such a casual manner, this more particularly despite we pointing out to the petitioners as to whether they would be serious on their contentions in the petition”.
The HC, further, remarked that it agrees with opponents view that the petition has political overtone. The HC said that it was shocking that petition has questioned wisdom of Supreme Court at one place. HC said, “We have no manner of doubt that this petition is utterly motivated and is filed on extraneous considerations. As rightly contended on behalf of the respondents, the petition is patently frivolous, which is undeserving of any attention of the Court, considering the settled principles of law as laid down in catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, on the Cour entertaining public interest petitions”.
HC further said, “We intend to caution the petitioners to be more careful and circumspect when they take upon themselves espousing such causes. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no manner of doubt that the present proceeding is a patent abuse of process of law. The proceedings cannot be kept pending and are required to be dismissed”.