The impending inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya has led to a spurt of litigation before courts as well as requests by various bar associations for the declaration of a court holiday on January 22..The ceremony, which will be presided by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is expected to be attended by over 8,000 guests.Notably, it was the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict that paved the way for the construction of the Ram Mandir. In that judgment, a three-judge bench had declared that the title of the disputed site at Ayodhya vests with Bhagwan Sri Ram..One year since the Ayodhya Judgment: The events that have followed the Supreme Court's landmark verdict.In this report, we briefly examine how the ceremony marking the inauguration of the temple has led to cases being filed before various courts..Plea in Allahabad High Court to ban the ceremony.On January 17, a public interest litigation (PIL) petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking a ban on the inauguration ceremony. According to ANI, the plea was filed by one Bhola Das, a resident of Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh.The plea said that as per the Hindu calendar, no religious programs should be organized in the month of Paush. Besides, the petitioner submitted that the temple is still under construction and that the consecration of the deity cannot happen since it would be inconsistent with the Sanatana tradition.Additionally, it alleged that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was orchestrating the event to gain a political advantage in the upcoming Lok Sabha polls.However, the PIL is yet to be listed..Calcutta High Court rejects "dry day" PIL.A PIL was filed before the Calcutta High Court to declare January 22 a "dry day" (a day on which the sale of alcohol is prohibited).On January 18, a Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya rejected the PIL, opining that declaring a dry day would come under the realm of a policy decision.During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a decision to declare January 22 as a dry day has been taken by five states, including Chhattisgarh. However, counsel for the West Bengal government termed the PIL a "strange one" and argued that just because a few states have taken some decision, the government of West Bengal cannot be asked to follow suit. .Calcutta High Court declines to halt TMC religious harmony rally on day of Ram Mandir inauguration.On the same day, the Calcutta High Court rejected a plea by BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari to halt the conduct of the "Sampriti" rally - purportedly aimed at fostering religious harmony - by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) party on January 22.Adhikari's plea raised concern that large-scale violence may ensue if the TMC rally is conducted on January 22, when the Ram Mandir is set to be inaugurated.Adhikari had urged the Court to direct that no such rally be held on January 22. In the alternative, he had prayed for directions to deploy the military to prevent any violence.A Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya questioned how such a rally would affect the inauguration of the Ram Mandir. It asked the State to ensure that there is no breach of peace or tranquility during the rally in West Bengal..Calcutta High Court grants permission for live broadcast of ceremony in South Kolkata.However, in another order passed on January 18, the Calcutta High Court permitted the Kalighat Bahumukhi Seva Samiti to broadcast the inauguration of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir and also conduct puja and kirtan at Deshpran Sasmal Park in South Kolkata.Justice Jay Sengupta passed the order on a petition filed by the Samiti after State authorities objected to conducting such an event at another location in South Kolkata.The Court allowed the conduct of the event between 9 AM and 6 PM, provided the participant limit does not exceed sixty persons.In doing so, the Court also overruled a suggestion by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to limit the event's conduct to between 10 AM to 2 PM..Madras High Court rejects PIL against half day in JIPMER, Pondicherry.In a special Sunday hearing, the Madras High Court rejected a PIL against the declaration of a half-day holiday for Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry on January 22.A Bench Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy found no basis for the petitioner's concerns after JIPMER submitted that emergency services will continue even during the holiday..Bombay High Court junks PIL against declaration of State holiday on January 22.Four students from Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Mumbai, Government Law College, Mumbai and NIRMA University approached the Bombay High Court challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to declare a public holiday on January 22.The students applied to the High Court Registrar on Saturday, January 20, seeking constitution of a special bench to hear the petition on Sunday, January 21.A Bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale on Sunday dismissed the PIL, stating that it was a publicity-oriented petition and that the consistent stand of courts when it comes to declaration of holidays is that the same is within the realm of government policy.The Court also castigated the petitioners for what it termed as questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court.It noted that though the petitioners were challenging a Central government notification of 1968 which delegates powers to states to declare such holidays, the said notification was not appended to the petition.The Court finally cautioned the petitioners against pursuing such issues by way of PIL, but refrained from imposing costs on them..Half-days and holidays in tribunals.Meanwhile, holidays or half-days were declared by various tribunals in India on account of the prāṇa pratiṣṭhā (consecration) ceremony on January 22.The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was among the first to announce that it will be working only for half the day on January 22.The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) followed suit, announcing that all its benches will be working only for half the day on Monday. According to an office order dated January 19, administrative offices and registries of all 15 NCLT Benches will commence their operations only from 3 PM onwards on January 22. On the judicial side, NCLT benches shall sit only at 3 PM and will take only urgent matters from 3 PM to 4:30 PM and on mentioning.On January 20, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) also announced that all of its benches and even its registry will remain closed till 2:30 on the day of the inauguration. An NGT office order further stated that fresh admission matters listed for the day would be taken up 3 PM onwards and that mattters already listed for hearing would be taken up on January 25.These decisions were taken pursuant to a memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions calling for Central government offices across the country to be closed till 2:30 PM on January 22.For the same reason, the principal bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) will also be shut on January 22 while all outlying benches of CAT will observe half-day holiday on that day. .Bar bodies call for a holiday.On January 17, Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra asked Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud to declare a holiday for all courts across the country on the day of the inauguration ceremony.The BCI Chairman asserted that a holiday on January 22 would demonstrate a "harmonious blend of legal processes with the cultural ethos of the nation."The same day, Secretary General of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA) Hardik Brahmbhatt addressed a letter to Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal of the Gujarat High Court, requesting that no adverse orders be passed against lawyers who failed to appear in court on January 22.A similar request was made by the New Delhi Bar Association a day earlier. In a letter addressed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Patiala House Court, the Association's Honorary Secretary ON Sharma requested judicial officers not to pass any adverse orders for non-appearance of advocates and litigants on January 22.On January 20, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association at Jammu also requested the district judiciary, revenue courts, tribunals and other legal fora to not pass adverse orders against lawyers on January 22 on account of their absence.