Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
All India Shiromani Singh Sabha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks nationwide holiday recognition. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments for codifying public holiday guidelines. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on policy decisions vs judicial resolution. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed; no justiciable basis. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
1. Heard.
3. The petitioner society, a registered charitable and religious organisation, has instituted this writ petition by way of a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: -
4. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, submits that the existing framework governing the declaration of public holidays in India lacks any statutory foundation and is instead regulated by executive instructions. It is contended that such absence of codified standards results in arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of discretion by the executive, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Learned senior counsel further submits that in a country as diverse as India, the formulation of a uniform policy is necessary to ensure fairness, transparency, and con
The court ruled that the determination of public holidays falls within the executive's domain and cannot be mandated judicially, emphasizing administrative discretion and the impracticality of unifor....
The decision to declare public holidays is a matter of government policy and not a legally enforceable right.
The decision to declare a public holiday is a matter of government policy and not a legally enforceable right.
Festival holidays cannot be declared on days already classified as holidays unless proper consultative processes are adhered to.
The fundamental rights to assemble peaceably and practice religion, as well as the significance of centuries-old customs and religious practices, were central to the judgment.
The court ruled that self-proclaiming as a religious figure, intending to outraging communal sentiments, justified continued investigation under Section 295A IPC.
The main legal point established is that 'round-the-clock shift workers' are entitled to the benefit under Section 5(2)(b) of the Act, even if the declared holiday falls on another holiday.
Temporary employees under the Kalelkar Award are entitled to the same holiday benefits and overtime pay as permanent employees, regardless of government circulars to the contrary.
The court emphasized the secular nature of India and the importance of genuine Public Interest Litigations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
