The Delhi high court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking discontinuation of its summer vacation, saying that most judges spend substantial part of vacation time in writing judgments at their offices.
The order was passed by a bench of Acting Chief Justice B.D. Ahmed and Justice Vibhu Bakhru which turned down the PIL filed by Prakash India, a registered society, also seeking quashing of the 2013 circular which notified the vacation period from June 1 to 30. “Most of the judges spend substantial part of vacation time in writing the judgments at their offices,” the bench observed, rejecting the petitioner’s suggestion that either the judges avail the vacation on rotation basis like police officers or the high court should curtail the number of vacation days to 10 or 15 instead of 30 days.
“Unfortunately other organisations cannot be compared with court system. It is not practically feasible nor advisable to work in rotation. It might become absolutely chaotic. We don’t see any merit in this case and dismiss (it),” the bench said, adding that this high court has been maintaining 210 working days as per the central government communication.
Appearing in person, petitioner Suraj Prakash Manchanda, a retired bank officer, argued that there is huge pendency of cases across the country including over 60,000 in the Delhi high court and the judges and lawyers should not go on vacation as litigants suffer. “...In such circumstance, the judges and advocates who have sworn to uphold the rule of law and Constitution of India cannot afford to go on long vacations. This affects the sacred objective of rendering social justice to one and all in the country,” the plea said.
The Delhi high court also issued notice to the city government on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking direction to constitute special courts for trying sexual offences committed against children.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice B.D. Ahmed and Justice Vibhu Bakhru sought response from the Delhi government by August 14 on the PIL filed by an advocate Gaurav Bansal.
The petition said that though Section 28 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act mandates setting up special courts, nothing has been in that direction done so far.