PIL opposes 70-day vacation availed by high judiciary

Mumbai The Bombay high court, while hearing a petition against the 70-day vacations being availed by the higher judiciary, said the suggestion of the petitioner to have the court functioning throughout the year and judges taking leave around the year would be akin to a school which could not function because teachers took leaves throughout the academic year

Mumbai The Bombay high court, while hearing a petition against the 70-day vacations being availed by the higher judiciary, said the suggestion of the petitioner to have the court functioning throughout the year and judges taking leave around the year would be akin to a school which could not function because teachers took leaves throughout the academic year.

PIL opposes 70-day vacation availed by high judiciary

The HC asked the petitioner to list the number of times she had approached the HC for reliefs in some other case but had not got it due to the absence of judges which prompted her to file the petition opposing court vacations. The HC also issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to respond to the petition.

The division bench of justices SV Gangapurwala and justice SG Dige, while hearing the petition filed by Sabina Lakdawala, was informed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara that closing courts for more than 70 days during the year for any kind of vacation violated fundamental rights of litigants.

Nedumpara submitted that closure of courts in the name of vacation was introduced by the British and the same needed to be discontinued as it was being followed mechanically and mindlessly.

The petition stated that though both judges and lawyers needed breaks, keeping it limited to weekends and gazetted holidays would suffice. It added that judges and lawyers could take leaves at different times of the year so that they may not be affected by the increased workload.

The court was not convinced with this submission and said, “Imagine if this is a school. What if the maths 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?”

Nedumpara, then submitted that his client has been suffering for long as her case was not being listed.

Justice Gangapurwala asked Nedumpara to separately plead on this issue and show the court how many times, urgent relief was not granted.

However, Nedumpara stated that the petition raised a larger issue regarding access to justice.

The bench appreciated the intent of the petition but stated that though the expectation of the litigant was legitimate, the issue of shortage of judges also needed to be addressed.

Nedumpara responded stating that the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a good solution to the problem.

“Had NJAC been set up, then this problem would not have arisen. Judges don’t need to appoint judges,” he said, referring to the current system of the Supreme Court collegium appointing judges.

The bench then stated that the views of the Bar Council of India on this petition was relevant and issued notice to it.