The Supreme Court refused to mandate a national holiday for Guru Gobind Singh Jayanti, asserting that India, as a developing country, must prioritize the dignity of work and business continuity, while adding that such decisions fall in the realm of executive policy.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, in a ruling on Tuesday, held that the legacy of the 10th Sikh Guru is best honored through selfless service to the community rather than mandating symbolic gestures like a nationwide public holiday, dismissing a public interest litigation seeking such a declaration. The court added that the expansion of leaves published in the Official Gazette is a matter of executive policy and warned that indiscriminate additions would negatively impact management and productivity.
“In view of this, his legacy may perhaps be better celebrated through selfless performance of duties to the community and nation rather than tokenistic display of respect,” the court noted, while recording its “deep regard” for Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
The bench also noted that the country’s diverse diaspora already enjoys a variety of holidays based on religious beliefs, even as India’s national and regional calendars are filled with celebrations that reflect our rich pluralism. Therefore, the Court emphasized: “As a developing country, the focus 6 must remain on the dignity of work and the continuity of work.”
The court was hearing a PIL filed by the All India Shiromani Singh Sabha, a registered charitable and religious organisation. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the organisation, said the lack of a legal framework for declaring public holidays leads to arbitrary and discriminatory decisions by governments. Singh also urged that, keeping in view the immense contribution made by Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the spiritual and moral fabric of the nation, his birth anniversary (Prakash Parve) should be given the status of a nationally gazetted holiday.
But the bench refused to direct the Union government to declare Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Prakash Parv holiday as a national holiday or frame uniform guidelines for such declarations, holding that such matters fall squarely within the purview of the executive.
“Declaring public holidays is…a political decision that requires a careful balancing of factors such as administrative efficiency, continuity of basic services, economic impacts, and accommodating diverse social and cultural practices in the country,” the report stated.
“Any arbitrary addition would adversely affect governance and public productivity,” the court added, also noting that the classification of public holidays is shaped by administrative requirements and regional social and cultural considerations.
The court rejected the petition under Article 32, stressing that its jurisdiction was limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights and could not extend to the standardization of cultural or commemorative practices.
It considered that “jurisdiction under Article 32… cannot be expanded to transform this court into an authority to unify cultural or memorial practices throughout the country.”
The bench also rejected the argument that the absence of a uniform holiday policy violates the right to equality under Article 14, noting that India’s federal structure allows for differences on the basis of regional and administrative considerations. “The difference in approach…does not in itself amount to arbitrariness or discrimination,” the court said.
The court further clarified that while the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, it does not extend to seeking state recognition of religious events as a mandatory nationwide holiday. The council said the petition’s reliance on Article 25 (religious rights) was “misplaced”, adding that such claims, if accepted, could open the floodgates to similar demands across communities.
