Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has said that he will not be attending the Ram temple consecration ceremony in Ayodhya on January 22. Instead, he plans to organize a trip for his cabinet members, MLAs, and Lok Sabha MPs from the state to visit the Ram Temple for `darshan` later.

Speaking to reporters during the Tata Marathon in Mumbai, Shinde emphasized the significance of the temple to their faith and pride.

The Chief Minister expressed his preference for a larger representation from the state government at the temple, stating that it would include not only cabinet members but also MLAs and parliamentarians.

Shinde aims to involve officials and devotees in this visit to the Ram Temple. In preparation for the upcoming Ram temple consecration ceremony on Monday, he has instructed officials to conduct a cleanliness drive in temples and adorn them with lights.

Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis also indicated earlier in the day that he plans to visit Ayodhya in February for “Ram seva.”

Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by four students challenging the Maharashtra government`s decision to declare a public holiday on January 22 for the Ram temple consecration ceremony in Ayodhya.

A bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale dismissed the PIL, deeming it “politically motivated, frivolous, and vexatious.” The court urged the students, who had filed the plea, to engage in more meaningful activities and refrained from imposing costs due to their young age.

The Maharashtra government argued that the declaration of a holiday falls within the executive policy decision and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. The students contended that the decision was an “abuse of power for political purposes” aimed at influencing upcoming parliamentary elections.

The petition, filed by law students Shivangi Agarwal, Satyajeet Salve, Vedant Agarwal, and Khushi Bangia, sought to quash the government order declaring the holiday on January 22. The court criticized the petition, describing it as politically motivated and a “publicity interest litigation.” It questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court being challenged in the petition and expressed doubt about the motivations behind the statements in the plea.

The court emphasized that such petitions were a “blatant abuse of law” and should not be kept pending. It further questioned the inclusion of political remarks in the plea and inquired about the motivation behind those statements. The petition argued that government participation in the consecration of a Hindu temple undermines secular principles, suggesting that public holidays for such events could lead to disruptions in education, finance, governance, and public works.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the Maharashtra government, asserted that declaring holidays for religious events is a standard practice, allowing citizens to observe their religious practices. He argued that such holidays are not exclusive to one community but are declared for all religious communities. (With inputs from agencies)

Source link