Bombay HC issues notice to Bar Council of India on plea against long court vacations – The Indian Express

The plea has sought a declaration that closing courts for more than 70 days for any kind of vacation is a violation of the fundamental rights of litigants and the same should come to an end.

A division bench of Justices S V Gangapurwala and S G Dige said that expectation of the litigant was legitimate, however, the shortage of judges was also an issue that needed to be addressed.

“From where do you get judges to constitute benches? Expectation of the litigant is legitimate and we understand, and the predicament too, but what can we do?” the bench orally remarked.

The lawyer for the petitioner said the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) could be a solution for the appointment of judges and said that judges (through the collegium) do not need to appoint judges.

The bench remarked that the issue of non-listing of matters was seen in the Supreme Court as well and the apex court had recently issued notice to its own registry seeking an explanation as to why a certain matter was not listed for a year despite it being ready for hearing.

The plea had sought that the high court be kept fully functional during the Diwali vacation, an adequate number of judges be made available to hear all the cases, not just urgent cases heard by vacation benches, and directions be issued to the high court registry to receive all petitions without insisting on permission from the vacation bench.

Lakdawala claimed that the court had failed to hear her private plea despite several requests for an urgent hearing and the same was because of the paucity of time due to high pendency, and long court holidays contributed to the same. “The long vacations that are a relic of the colonial era have, to a greater extent, contributed to the further collapse of the justice delivery system that is already on ventilation. The long vacation suits the convenience of elite lawyers, a microscopic minority,” stated the petition.

“Court vacation, a relic of our colonial past, was justified at a time when the majority of the judges were Englishmen, who were not adjusted to the extreme summers of India, and they needed long vacations to travel by sea to England. It was a necessity then, today, it is a luxury that the country can ill afford,” the petition argued.

Lakdawala said while the judges and lawyers need breaks, keeping the same limited to weekends and gazetted holidays will serve the purpose.

After advocate Mathews Nedumpara said that his client had been deprived of the hearing in her case, as the same was not being listed, the bench asked him to show how many times urgent relief was not granted.

Nedumpara, however, said that his plea referred to the larger issue of “access to justice” and same be addressed. He said the contention in the plea was not that the vacations be denied to judges and lawyers and their workload be increased, but that the judges can take leave at different times of the year so the court remains functional throughout the year.

Justice Gangapurwala questioned, “Imagine if this is a school. What if the mathematics teacher takes leave in January, the Science teacher takes leave in February, some other teacher takes in some other month, how will the school function?”

The bench said the BCI’s views would be required to be heard as they would be relevant and issued notice to the council seeking its response during the next hearing.