SC trashes 'frivolous' plea to make Karwa Chauth mandatory for all women

The Supreme Court dismissed as 'frivolous' a plea to make Karwa Chauth mandatory for all women, upholding the high court's order and ₹1,000 cost on the petitioner

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to make Karwa Chauth compulsory for all women, including widows, divorcees, and those in live-in relationships, reported Live Law.

 

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the plea filed by petitioner Narender Kumar Malhotra, terming the PIL “frivolous” and “motivated". 

 

“These are funded by actors who don't come forward,” Justice Kant said during the hearing. 

 

Karwa Chauth is a Hindu festival observed by married women, primarily in North India. The women fast from sunrise to moonrise, praying for their husbands’ long life.

 

 

The bench also noted that the petitioner failed to cite any legal provision mandating the observance of the festival and said the high court had already taken a lenient view by imposing only a nominal cost of ₹1,000.

 

“We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. If the petitioner attempts to file any such petition directly or indirectly, we hope the high court will take exemplary action,” the court said.

 

The petitioner had approached the high court seeking directions to make the celebration of Karwa Chauth compulsory for all women, regardless of their marital status. He argued that widows, divorcees, and women in live-in relationships are often denied participation in the festival.

 

The petitioner further sought the Union and Haryana governments to amend the laws in order to ensure their inclusion and make noncompliance punitive.

 

The high court dismissed the PIL, noting that the issue was under legislative domain. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea and refile, but the high court dismissed it as withdrawn and imposed a cost of ₹1,000.

 

The petitioner then moved the Supreme Court, which declined to grant any relief and dismissed the case.