The Supreme Court has held that Article 25 of the Constitution does not give anyone the right to demand that the State declare a public holiday on a religious occasion. At the same time, the Court stressed that decisions on public holidays belong to the policy domain and must account for governance, administrative efficiency, and economic consequences.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed a public interest litigation filed by the All India Shiromani Singh Sabha. The petition sought a direction to declare the birth anniversary (Prakash Parv) of Guru Gobind Singh as a nationwide gazetted holiday and also asked the Court to frame uniform guidelines for declaring public holidays across the country. The Court had dismissed the matter on March 17, and it uploaded the detailed order the next day.
Court Pays Tribute To Guru Gobind Singh
At the outset, the Bench expressed deep reverence for Guru Gobind Singh. It noted that Sikh teachings place great emphasis on honest labour, remembrance, and selfless service. The Court also said that Guru Gobind Singh’s life reflected courage, discipline, and unwavering commitment to duty even in the face of grave adversity.
Further, the Court referred to the principles of Kirat Karo and Vand Chakko. According to the Bench, these teachings encourage active engagement with one’s responsibilities rather than withdrawal from them. Therefore, the Court observed that society can best honour Guru Gobind Singh’s legacy through sincere performance of duties rather than by seeking a symbolic public holiday.
Public Holidays Fall Within Policy Domain
Turning to the main issue, the Court held that the declaration of public holidays is a matter of policy. It said such decisions require the State to balance administrative efficiency, economic implications, and governance concerns.
Moreover, the Bench noted that India’s national and regional calendars already include a wide range of holidays reflecting the country’s religious and cultural diversity. In that backdrop, the Court warned that any indiscriminate addition to the list of gazetted holidays could affect governance and public productivity.
The Bench also underlined that India remains a developing nation. Therefore, it said, the dignity of labour and continuity of work must remain central to policy decisions on public holidays. For that reason, the Court held that a judicial direction increasing non-working days would require a policy-based line-drawing exercise, which courts cannot undertake.
Article 25 Does Not Extend To State Recognition Through Holiday
The Court then rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Article 25. It clarified that the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom protects an individual’s right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. However, it does not create a right to seek State recognition of a religious occasion through a compulsory nationwide public holiday.
Accordingly, the Bench held that the invocation of Article 25 was wholly misplaced.
Federal Structure Permits Different Approaches
The Court also considered the argument based on unequal treatment. On this aspect, it observed that India’s federal structure naturally allows States to make different executive decisions based on regional and socio-cultural considerations.
As a result, the Bench held that differences in the declaration of public holidays across States do not, by themselves, amount to arbitrariness or discrimination under Article 14.
Court Warns Against Judicial Overreach
Finally, the Bench cautioned against judicial overreach in matters of this nature. It observed that if courts grant such relief, similar demands may follow from many other groups. That, in turn, could lead to an impractical expansion of public holidays and create serious difficulties for governance and administration.
Since the relief sought did not disclose any justiciable violation of fundamental rights under Article 32, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case: All India Shiromani Singh Sabha v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 1474/2020.
Also Read: Madras HC upholds SIPCOT’s resumption of unused industrial land.
