The PIL argued that this special concession violated the principles of equality and secularism under the Indian Constitution, as it gave preferential treatment to one religious group over others.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today, 7th March, heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Telangana government’s decision to allow Muslim employees, including teachers and public sector staff, to leave work early at 4:00 PM during the month of Ramzan.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Denies Prayers at Demolished ‘Akhoondji Mosque’ during Ramzan and Eid
The PIL argued that this special concession violated the principles of equality and secularism under the Indian Constitution, as it gave preferential treatment to one religious group over others.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar addressed the PIL, which challenged a circular issued by the Telangana General Administration Department on February 15, 2025. The circular permitted Muslim employees across various government sectors to leave their workplaces early from March 2, 2025, to March 31, 2025, in observance of Ramzan.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer, Senior Advocate K Parmeshwar, along with Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Sudhanshu Prakash and Advocate Anisha Agarwal, requested permission to withdraw the petition. The Court accepted this request and granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the respective High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled: “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition. Liberty to approach the respective High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We also state that the petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberties prayed. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion either on the merits or the assertions made in the petition.”
What Was the PIL About?
The PIL was filed through AoR Sudhanshu Prakash, seeking directives to the Union of India and all States/Union Territories to ensure that no public holidays—whether partial or full—are declared exclusively for members of a particular religion.
The petitioner contended that granting special concessions based on religion could set a precedent where other religious groups would demand similar benefits, thereby affecting administrative efficiency and governance.
The PIL specifically stated:
“The present Writ seeks, inter-alia, issuance of certain directions to the Union of India and Other States/Union Territories that no holidays [whether partial or complete] are declared only for adherents of any particular religion(s) and also to challenge the circular dated 15.02.2025 issued by the Government of Telangana, General Administration (Poll. B) Department bearing the Circular Memo No. 101 Poll. B/2025, (‘Impugned Circular’).”
According to the petition, “The Impugned Circular grants all Muslim employees, including teachers, contract and outsourcing staff, as well as those in boards, corporations, and employees in public sector units, in the State of Telangana, permission to leave their workplaces at 4:00 pm itself throughout the month of Ramzan, from 02.03.2025 to 31.03.2025.”
The PIL argued that the Telangana government’s circular violated Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Indian Constitution by creating an unreasonable classification based solely on religion. It highlighted that similar fasting practices exist in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and the Baháʼí faith, but the government had selectively granted relaxation to only one religious group.
The petition stated: “The State Government of Telangana, it appears, has exercised its power to declare public holidays under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 read with notification dated 08.05.1968, issued by the Government of India, the Ministry of Home Affairs, in an arbitrary manner that goes against the principles of equality.”
The PIL further argued
“It is submitted that while the State can make reasonable classifications, they must be based on intelligible differentia and serve a legitimate objective. The circular fails these requirements by granting preferential treatment to a specific group during Ramzan without offering similar concessions to others, resulting in religious discrimination.”
The petition asserted that the circular contradicted the right to equality under Articles 14 and 15, making it unconstitutional. It also stated that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice religion but within the framework of public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
It emphasized
“The Impugned Circular violates Article 25 when read alongside other provisions of Part III of the Indian Constitution. Article 25 grants all individuals the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to restrictions related to public order, morality, health, and other constitutional provisions. Since the circular contradicts the right to equality under Articles 14 and 15, it fails to meet the requirements of Article 25, which mandates a balanced approach in case of conflicts with other fundamental rights. Therefore, the circular is liable to be set aside.”
Case Title: Harsha Yardhana Sastry Kanchibota v. State of Telengana [W.P.(C) No. 199/2025; Diary No. 12321/2025]
