"Expectation legitimate": Bombay High Court seeks response from BCI on plea to do away with long court vacations

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a plea challenging the practice of courts taking long vacations thereby affecting filing and hearing of case during such vacation period..A bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala and SG Dige stated that the expectation of the litigant is legitimate but shortage of judges also needs to be addressed."From where do you get judges to sit in constitute benches? Expectation of the litigant is legitimate and we understand, and the predicament too, but what can we do," the Bench said. To this, petitioner's advocate Mathews Nedumpara, said that the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) should be the way forward for appointment of judges. "NJAC could have come up, then this problem would not have arisen. judges don’t need to appoint judges. I have written that the issue of NJAC be taken up," Nedumpara said. The Court at this point stated that the issue of non-listing of matters was prevalent in the Supreme Court as well. The bench referred to a recent instance when the Supreme Court issued notice to its own registry seeking an explanation on the as to why a matter was not listed for a year, though it was ready for hearing. The High Court then stated that the views of the Bar Council of India on this petition was relevant, and accordingly proceeded to issue notice to the bar body. .The bench was hearing a plea filed by one Sabin Lakdawala seeking a declaration that closing courts for more than 70 days for any kind of vacation, is a violation of fundamental rights of litigants.Closure of courts in Maharashtra in the name of vacation, a relic of the colonial era which is being followed mechanically and mindlessly, the petitioner said in her plea, urging then Court to abandon the practice. Lakdawala acknowledged that while both judges and lawyers need breaks, keeping it limited to weekends and gazetted holidays will suffice the purpose.She clarified that her contention was not that vacation be denied to judges and lawyers and their workload be increased, but the contention was that judges could be encouraged to take different leaves at different times of the year.Nedumpara, appearing for Lakdawala, 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. Nedumpara, however, said that his plea addresses the larger issue regarding access to justice. He contended that different judges can take leaves at different times and not together so that the Court remains functional round the year. He also acknowledged and appreciated how the bench was sitting beyond court working hours every day just to ensure maximum litigants can be heard. Justice Gangapurwala however was not convinced with this submission. "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?" the judge quipped.