Kiran Raj

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the introduction of laws requiring the compulsory participation of women in Karwa Chauth rituals. The petitioner had approached the court with demands for legislative action to declare the festival a “festival of good fortune” and to ensure inclusivity by mandating participation of all women, including widows, divorcees, and those in live-in relationships.

The court declined to interfere, stating that the issues raised were legislative in nature and outside the purview of judicial intervention. The PIL was dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioner’s request, with token costs imposed.

The PIL was filed by Narender Kumar Malhotra, who appeared in person to present his case before the High Court. The petitioner argued that Karwa Chauth should be made a universally inclusive festival for all women, regardless of their marital or social status. He contended that the exclusion of certain categories of women, particularly widows and divorcees, from participating in the festival rituals was discriminatory and violated constitutional principles of equality and social justice.

In his prayer, the petitioner urged the court to declare Karwa Chauth a “festival of good fortune” and sought government action to mandate participation through appropriate laws. He also suggested renaming the festival as “Maa Gaura Utsav” or “Maa Parvati Utsav” to emphasize its cultural significance and broaden its inclusivity. Additionally, the petitioner sought penal provisions for those who opposed or denied participation in the festival.

The petition named the Union of India, the State of Haryana, and other respondents, including the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The petitioner argued that these entities should take proactive measures to promote inclusivity and eliminate the alleged social stigma associated with the exclusion of widows and divorcees from the festival.

The respondents, represented by Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain and Advocate Neha Sharma, opposed the plea. They argued that regulating religious practices and rituals was beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary and fell exclusively within the domain of the legislature. The respondents submitted that the petitioner’s demands were not suitable for judicial determination and did not warrant interference by the court.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel examined the submissions made by the petitioner and the respondents. The court observed that the principal grievances raised by the petitioner pertained to legislative and social matters that could not be adjudicated upon by the judiciary.

The judgment stated: “The said subject falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature and this Court, therefore, declines interference in the present matter.” The court further noted that the petitioner’s request for introducing penal provisions mandating participation in Karwa Chauth rituals was beyond its jurisdiction and not a matter for judicial resolution.

During the proceedings, the court remarked that issues concerning religious festivals and practices must be addressed through legislative frameworks, if necessary, rather than through judicial mandates. The bench stated that the judiciary is not equipped to regulate cultural or social norms, as such actions require broader consultation and deliberation within legislative forums.

At the request of the petitioner, the court allowed the withdrawal of the PIL. The judgment recorded: “At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition.”

The court also addressed the petitioner’s additional prayers, such as renaming the festival and introducing new classifications for its observance. It observed that such proposals required legislative evaluation and were not matters suitable for judicial intervention.

The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn and imposed token costs of ₹1,000 on the petitioner. It directed the petitioner to deposit the amount with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh. The judgment stated: “The costs imposed shall be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of one month from today.”

The court also stated that its decision to impose costs was intended to ensure judicious use of public resources and discourage frivolous litigation that seeks judicial intervention in matters outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Case Title: Narender Kumar Malhotra v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: CWP-PIL-248-2024

Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel

[Read/Download order]