Supreme Court: In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a registered charitable and religious organisation seeking directions to the Union of India and the States to frame uniform guidelines for declaration of public or gazetted holidays in India and also sought specific direction to declare the birth anniversary (Prakash Parv) of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the 10th Sikh Guru, as a nationwide gazetted holiday, the Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ., declined to issue directions holding that relief sought was not justiciable under Article 32 as declaration of nationwide gazetted holiday or framing of uniform policy for public holidays lies within executive policy domain.
The petitioner contended that the present system governing declaration of public holidays has no statutory basis and is regulated only through executive instructions. According to the petitioner, the absence of codified standards allows arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of executive discretion, which violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that different governments follow a “pick and choose” approach in declaring holidays, resulting in unequal treatment of occasions of national, historical, and cultural importance.
The petitioner further emphasized the stature and contribution of Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the spiritual, moral and national fabric of the country and submitted that his birth anniversary deserved recognition as a nationwide gazetted holiday, especially in a pluralistic and secular society like India.
At the outset, the Court recorded its deep respect for the legacy of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and observed that his life reflected courage, discipline and commitment to duty. The Court noted that the teachings of Sikhism emphasise honest labour and selfless service, and that remembrance of such ideals is best honoured through performance of duties rather than through symbolic gestures.
While examining whether it could direct the executive to declare a public holiday or frame a uniform policy, the Court held that declaration of holidays is a matter of policy involving administrative, economic and governance considerations, including continuity of essential services and accommodation of diverse socio-cultural practices. Such decisions fall within the domain of the executive and are not ordinarily subject to judicial direction.
The Court observed that India’s calendar already contains numerous national, regional and religious holidays reflecting the country’s pluralism, and indiscriminate expansion of gazetted holidays would adversely affect governance and productivity. The Court also noted that in a federal structure, States may legitimately adopt different approaches based on regional and administrative considerations, and such variation does not by itself amount to discrimination.
The Court rejected the argument based on Article 14 on the ground that absolute uniformity is not required in matters of policy, and classification of holidays into gazetted and restricted categories itself shows a calibrated administrative approach. In the absence of manifest arbitrariness or mala fides, the Court held that policy choices regarding holidays cannot be interfered with.
The Court also held that Article 25 guarantees freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion, but does not confer a right to demand State recognition of a religious occasion as a compulsory public holiday.
Finally, the Court observed that granting such relief would open the floodgates to similar claims from different communities and would require continuous evaluation of socio-cultural priorities, which is a function best left to the executive.
The Court declined to issue directions either to declare the birth anniversary of Guru Gobind Singh Ji as a nationwide gazetted holiday or to frame uniform guidelines for declaration of holidays, holding that that the relief sought was not justiciable under Article 32 and that declaration of public holidays is a policy matter within the executive domain.
[All India Shiromani Singh Sabha v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1474 of 2020, decided on 17-3-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Counsel for the Petitioner
Buy Constitution of India HERE
