The Madras High Court on Sunday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition against the decision to give half-day holiday to Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry on January 22, the day of the inauguration of the Ram Mandir ay Ayodhya..In a special sitting held at 10.30 am, 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 holiday. ."ASG submits that emergency surgeries will be undertaken, emergency services will run as usual. Patients in need of emergency scans, appointments will be attended to. In view of these submissions, the apprehensions of the petitioner do not hold," the Court said..The PIL was filed by one R Raja from Pondicherry with representation from Senior Advocate V Prakash and Advocate Magesh Nandu..The closure, in effect until 2:30 pm on January 22, was initiated based on an Office Memorandum from the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions, mandating the closure of central government offices and institutions until 2:30 pm on January 22 due to the Ram Mandir consecration..During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AL Sundaresan, appearing for JIPMER, assured the court that measures would be taken to prevent overlap between surgeries scheduled for the morning and afternoon. He emphasized that JIPMER would ensure surgeries proceed without unreasonable delays.He highlighted that the circular issued by Senior Administrative Officer of JIPMER, Hawa Singh, clarified that emergency services would continue to operate during the closure.ASG Sundaresan added that patients with planned surgeries would be notified about the rescheduling process.The petitioner raised concerns about essential services like dialysis and cancer-related scans."They cannot stop dialysis, cancer scans etc. Those will have to go on irrespective of the closure," the Chief Justice said.Following these submissions, the Court recorded the assurances provided by JIPMER. Based on the information presented, the Court concluded that the apprehensions raised by the petitioner did not have a substantial basis and rejected the plea.