Introduction:

In the case of Narender Kumar Malhotra v. Union of India and another (2025 LiveLaw (PH) 27), the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to make the celebration of the Karwa Chauth festival mandatory for all women, regardless of their marital status. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that the subject matter falls exclusively within the purview of the legislature and declined to interfere. The Court also imposed a token cost of ₹1,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, Narender Kumar Malhotra, appearing in person, argued that Karwa Chauth should be declared a festival of good fortune for women, celebrated universally by all women, including widows, divorcees, women in live-in relationships, and separated women. He proposed that the festival be renamed “Maa Gaura Utsav” or “Maa Parvati Utsav” to symbolize women’s prosperity and happiness. The petitioner contended that certain sections of society prevent widows and other categories of women from participating in Karwa Chauth rituals, which he deemed discriminatory. He sought a directive to the Union and Haryana Governments to enact laws ensuring the mandatory participation of all women in Karwa Chauth celebrations, irrespective of their marital status. Additionally, he requested that denial or prevention of participation be declared punishable under law.

Arguments of the Respondents:

Representing the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr Satya Pal Jain, and Advocate Ms Neha Sharma opposed the PIL. They argued that the petition was frivolous and raised no substantial legal issue warranting judicial interference. They contended that the petitioner sought to impose a cultural practice on women without considering individual freedoms and diverse social customs. It was further argued that matters related to religious or cultural practices fall under legislative discretion, and the judiciary cannot dictate or legislate in such domains.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court, while addressing the submissions, noted that the petitioner’s grievance was primarily a social cause aimed at eliminating discrimination against certain categories of women during Karwa Chauth rituals. However, the Court emphasized that religious and cultural practices are personal choices and cannot be mandated through judicial orders. The bench observed that imposing compulsory participation in religious rituals infringes upon individual freedom and autonomy, guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

The Court stated that legislative bodies, not the judiciary, are the appropriate forums to address such issues if deemed necessary. It highlighted that compelling participation in any festival contradicts the principles of secularism and personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution. Dismissing the PIL as devoid of merit, the Court directed the petitioner to pay ₹1,000 as costs to the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh, emphasizing that frivolous petitions waste judicial resources and detract from more pressing matters.

The bench concluded by reiterating that judicial interference in cultural or religious practices should be limited to instances where fundamental rights are violated or statutory provisions require interpretation. The petition was dismissed, and the Court underscored the need for petitioners to approach the judiciary responsibly, avoiding matters that lie outside its jursdiction.