Shivangi Agarwal vs Union of India - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 109

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

- The court emphasized the importance of caution and circumspection when pursuing Public Interest Litigations (PILs), highlighting that petitions can be dismissed as a patent abuse of process if found to be frivolous, vexatious, or motivated by extraneous considerations [p_28].

- The petitioners, who are law students, filed a PIL challenging a government notification declaring a public holiday, but the court found that the decision to declare holidays falls within the realm of executive policy and is not subject to judicial review unless there is clear arbitrariness or violation of law [p_13][p_19].

- The court observed that the petition lacked a proper legal foundation, as the central notification and the powers conferred by it were not properly challenged or placed on record, rendering the petition legally untenable [p_4][p_7].

- It was noted that decisions regarding declaring holidays are made based on broader public interest considerations and are within the executive domain, especially when such decisions are made considering secular principles and religious festivals [p_17][p_19].

- The court criticized the petitioners for their casual and reckless approach, suggesting that the petition was motivated by political overtones and publicity interests rather than genuine legal or constitutional concerns [p_21][p_23].

- The court underscored that the petition contained inflammatory and inappropriate statements, including questioning the judiciary and making unsubstantiated allegations, which further demonstrated its lack of bona fide intent [p_21][p_23].

- Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition in limine, ruling it to be a clear abuse of legal process, and chose not to impose costs due to the petitioners' status as students, but issued a strong caution regarding the careful use of PILs in the future [p_28][p_29].

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.

Back Next

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 109

G. S. KULKARNI, NEELA GOKHALE
Shivangi Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Shivangi Agarwal, NLU Mumbai, Mr. Satyajeet Salve, GLC, Mumbai, Mr.Vedant Agrawal, Nirma University, Ms.Khushi Bangra, NLU, Mumbai,
For the Respondent:Mr.Devang Vyas, Additional Solicitor General a/w Mr. D.P.Singh a/w Mr. Pratik Irpatgire a/w Mr. Sheelang Shah a/w Mr. Jenish Jain, Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w Mr. P.P. Kakade, a/w Mr O.A. Chandurkar Additional Government Pleader a/w Mr. Jay Sanklecha, Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sudhanva S. Bedekar a/w Mr. Akash Kotecha a/w Mr. Shahank Dubey a/w Mr. Amey Mahadik a/w Mr. Anand Varadkar i/b Law Supremus, Mr. Sanjeev M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Anjali Helekar a/w Mr Prakash Salsingikar a/w Mr. Santosh R.Dubey a/w Mr. Shriram Redij a/w Kanaad Aphale a/w Mr. Anand Nayak a/w Mr. Gauri Helekar i/b Rithvik Joshi, Mr. Subhash Jha i/b Law Global, Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay a/w Mr. Vijay Jha a/w Mr Anikt Upadhyay i/b Law Juris, Dr. Jaishri Patil a/w Mr Rajaashok Ghate, Mr. Prathamesh Gaikwad a/w Mr. Aniruddh Yadav a/w Mr. Ganesh Nagargoje a/w Mr. Vishal Khetre a/w Mr. Nitin Hajare, Mr. Praful A. Patil a/w Mr. Rohit Patil, Dr. Gunratan Sadavarte

Headnote: Read headnote

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. The petitioners claim to be law students of colleges in Maharashtra and Gujarat. The challenge raised by the petitioners under the garb of this Public Interest Litigation, primarily is to the notification dated 19 January 2024 issued by the Government of Maharashtra declaring 22 January 2024 as a public holiday on the occasion of the celebrations of the “Shri Ram-Lalla Pran-Pratishtha Din”. The impugned notification is issued by the State Government under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in exercise of the powers entrusted to it by the Central Government under the notification by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 8 May 1968.

2. At the outset, we may observe that although the notification dated 8 May 1968 issued by the Government of India, is challenged in prayer clause (a), however, the same is not placed on record, nor are there any averments in the memo of the petition specifically assailing the said notification, in regard to the powers which the notification would confer on the State Government.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judgement Key Points

2024 Supreme(Bom) 109

G. S. KULKARNI, NEELA GOKHALEShivangi Agarwal – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Related Judgments

Shivangi Agarwal VS Union of India - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 109

RAMNIWAS DAGA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14859

Savio Norvin Menezes vs Union of India, The Ministry of Education, Thr. The Secretary Education 122-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 793

Savio Norvin Menezes Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 606

Balagopalan G. v. State of Kerala and Others - 2021 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44645

Sumit Nayyar VS Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board - 2017 Supreme(J&K) 400

Maiva Pharma Employees Union, Krishnagiri VS Joint Director Industrial Safety & Health, Hosur - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2815

Manish Patwari VS State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher & Technical Education - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 650

Moti Lal Yadav VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 582

D. V. Ramkrishna Rao VS Union of India - 2024 6 Supreme(Telangana) 727

Cases Referred (7)

G. S. KULKARNI, NEELA GOKHALE
Shivangi Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent