1. A charitable society filed a writ petition seeking a mandate for the executive to declare a specific birth anniversary as a nationwide gazetted holiday. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 315
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
All India Shiromani Singh Sabha – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 1474 of 2020
Decided On : 17-03-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Durga Dutt, AOR Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv., Mr. Rohit Priyadarshi, Adv., Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv., Mr. Upendra Narayan Mishra, Adv., Mr. Ashish Ranjan, Adv., Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Adv., Mr. Z Orenvungo Ezung, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. R Venkatramani, Attorney General (NP), Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (NP), Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv., Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv., Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv., Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv., Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv., Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Kr.pandey, Adv., Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. S. N. Terdal, Aor, Adv., Dr. Monika Gusain, Sr. Adv., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv., Mr. Hariom Yaduvanshi, Adv., Mr. Arjun Yaduvanshi, Adv., Ms. Tanya Gupta, Adv., Ms. S. Harini, Adv., Ms. Disha Singh , AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv., Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv., Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv., Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv., Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv., Ms. Aarohi Garg, Adv., Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv., Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv., Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv., Ms. Pracheta Kar, AOR Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Sonali Gaur, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Yachna Sharma, Adv., Ms. Arush Chopra, Adv., Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR Mr. Anandh K, AOR Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, Adv., Ms. Reshma Nair, Adv., Ms. Devani Shukla, Adv., Mr. Vivekanand Akshali, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Sahani, Adv., Ms. Iyer Shruti Gopal, Adv., Mr. Ang Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Kate, Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Durga Dutt, AOR Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv., Mr. Rohit Priyadarshi, Adv., Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv., Mr. Upendra Narayan Mishra, Adv., Mr. Ashish Ranjan, Adv., Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Adv., Mr. Z Orenvungo Ezung, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. R Venkatramani, Attorney General (NP), Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (NP), Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv., Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv., Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv., Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv., Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv., Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Kr.pandey, Adv., Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. S. N. Terdal, Aor, Adv., Dr. Monika Gusain, Sr. Adv., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv., Mr. Hariom Yaduvanshi, Adv., Mr. Arjun Yaduvanshi, Adv., Ms. Tanya Gupta, Adv., Ms. S. Harini, Adv., Ms. Disha Singh , AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv., Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv., Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv., Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv., Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv., Ms. Aarohi Garg, Adv., Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv., Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv., Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv., Ms. Pracheta Kar, AOR Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Sonali Gaur, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Yachna Sharma, Adv., Ms. Arush Chopra, Adv., Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR Mr. Anandh K, AOR Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, Adv., Ms. Reshma Nair, Adv., Ms. Devani Shukla, Adv., Mr. Vivekanand Akshali, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Sahani, Adv., Ms. Iyer Shruti Gopal, Adv., Mr. Ang Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Kate, Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
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 uniform policies.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation seeking declaration of a public holiday for Guru Gobind Singh Ji - The existing framework for public holidays was deemed non-statutory, leading to arbitrary executive discretion - The absence of uniformity does not amount to discrimination under Article 14 - Judicial mandates regarding public holiday declarations are not appropriate and fall within executive domain - Competing claims from society could lead to impractical increases in holidays. (Paras 4-19)
(B) Executive Authority - The determination of public holidays involves administrative considerations that should not be interfered with by the judiciary - Judicial intervention would disrupt governance and productivity, as holiday designations are best evaluated by the executive. (Paras 11, 12, 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered charitable organization, sought a writ for a nationwide holiday for the Tenth Sikh Guru's celebration, contending the lack of statutory criteria leads to arbitrary practices.
Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the need for executive discretion in holiday determination, dismissing the petition as it would infringe on executive functions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the court can mandate public holiday declarations through Article 32.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while cultural reverence is important, judicial mandates do not extend to administrating public holidays and should remain a matter for executive discretion.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued existing holiday guidelines lack statutory basis, causing arbitrary and discriminatory executive action, while failing to recognize significant cultural and historical observances. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. The court observed that assigning public holidays is an executive policy decision balancing administrative efficiency, operational continuity, and diverse socio-cultural requirements, which is not amenable to judicial interference. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 )
4. Government policy regarding the declaration of public holidays involves complex administrative calibration and is not a justiciable subject for judicial intervention under Article 32. (Para 11 , 14 , 16 , 18 )
5. The writ petition is dismissed as the court declines to issue directions for the creation of a uniform national holiday policy. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. Can the court issue a writ of mandamus directing the government to declare a specific holiday?
No. The court held that determining public holidays is an executive policy matter involving administrative and governance considerations that does not warrant judicial interference absent manifest arbitrariness or mala fides. (Para 11 , 14 , 16 )
7. Does the lack of a uniform policy for declaring public holidays violate Article 14 by being arbitrary?
No. The court found that differentiations in holiday declarations based on regional and socio-cultural factors are rational and do not constitute discrimination, as Article 14 does not mandate absolute policy uniformity. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. Does the freedom of religion under Article 25 confer a right to demand a state-recognized public holiday?
No. Article 25 protects the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, but it does not grant the right to seek mandatory state recognition of religious occasions as nationwide public holidays. (Para 15 )
ORDER :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Applications seeking intervention are allowed.
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: -
a. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ directing the Respondents to issue appropriate directions/orders/guidelines regarding issuance of specific guidelines for declaration of Public/Gazetted holiday in India by Respondents viz. Union and State governments; and/or
b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondents to declare the Tenth Sikh Guru “Guru Govind Singh Jee” Prakash Parv as Gazetted/Public Holiday to be observed all over India including but not restricted to the States/Union Territories of India in which the Sikhs have significant population as well as in the States which is connected to the life and activities of Tenth Sikh Guru “Guru Govind Singh Jee”.
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.
5. It is further submitted that, in the absence of a transparent and uniform policy, the Union and the States have adopted a ‘pick and choose’ approach in recognising certain occasions as gazetted holidays while excluding others of equal national, historical, and cultural significance. Such inconsistency undermines the objectivity expected in a pluralistic secular society and results in marginalisation of significant cultural and historical observances. Emphasis is placed on the stature of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, and it is urged that, having regard to his immense contribution to the nation’s spiritual and moral fabric, his birth anniversary (Prakash Parv) ought to be accorded the status of a nationwide gazetted holiday.
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 consistency in the declaration of public holidays. In support of this contention, reference is made to foreign jurisdictions where such matters are governed by statutory frameworks.
7. Thus, it is urged that the existing system, being unguided and non-uniform, results in arbitrary exercise of executive discretion, and that the continued non-recognition of the Prakash Parv of Guru Gobind Singh Ji as a nationwide gazetted holiday necessitates appropriate directions from this Court for framing comprehensive guidelines governing such declarations.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have perused the material available on record.
9. At the outset, it must be observed that the tenets of Sikhism place paramount emphasis on remembrance, honest labour, and selfless service. The life of Guru Gobind Singh Ji stands as a testament to courage, discipline, and unwavering commitment to duty, even in the face of the gravest adversity. His teachings, rooted in the concept of ‘Kirat Karo’ (earn an honest living) and ‘Vand Chakko’ (share what you earn), illuminate a path of active engagement with one’s responsibilities rather than disengagement therefrom. This Court records its deepest reverence for the Tenth Guru, whose life was a tireless crusade for justice and the fulfillment of one’s earthly duties. In this light, the celebration of his legacy is perhaps best achieved through the dedicated performance of duties toward society and the nation rather than a symbolic show of respect by demanding a holding in reverence.
10
