Delhi Bar Protests Saturday Sittings, Cites "Sense of Exclusion" and Lack of Consultation

NEW DELHI – A significant administrative decision by the Delhi High Court to introduce working Saturdays has sparked a sharp rebuke from the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), igniting a debate on judicial efficiency, the practical realities of legal practice, and the crucial relationship between the Bar and the Bench.

In a strongly-worded letter addressed to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, the DHCBA has formally objected to a Full Court resolution that mandates each bench of the High Court to conduct hearings on one Saturday per month throughout the 2025 calendar year. The Bar Association argues that the move, implemented without any prior consultation, will cause "deep concern and disquiet" among advocates, leading to severe practical inconveniences and disrupting the already precarious work-life balance of legal professionals.

The High Court's Unilateral Mandate

The controversy stems from a notification issued on October 4, which communicated a decision made by the Full Court in its meeting on September 22, 2025. The notification states, "It has been resolved by Hon’ble the Full Court... that each Bench of this Court shall observe one working Saturday of every month as a Court working day during the Calendar Year 2025."

While the High Court's initiative is presumably aimed at tackling the formidable challenge of case pendency and improving judicial efficiency, the method of its implementation has drawn criticism. The decision's most contentious aspect is its lack of uniformity; different benches may choose to sit on different Saturdays each month. This has become the central point of contention for the legal community.

A "Sense of Exclusion": The Bar's Core Grievance

The representation, dated October 17 and signed by DHCBA President, Senior Advocate N Hariharan, underscores a fundamental principle of judicial administration: the symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and the lawyers who practice before it. The DHCBA contends that any decision impacting court functioning must involve the Bar as a primary stakeholder.

The letter explicitly states, “While the Delhi High Court Bar Association holds the highest regard for the decisions of the Full Court and fully supports all initiatives aimed at improving judicial efficiency and reducing pendency, it is most respectfully submitted that the Bar was neither consulted nor informed before such a decision was taken.”

This lack of dialogue, the association argues, has bred resentment and practical difficulties. “Since the functioning of Courts necessarily involves the active participation of Advocates, the absence of any consultation with the Bar has caused genuine hardship and a sense of exclusion,” the DHCBA’s representation reads. This sentiment points to a perceived procedural lapse, where a decision with direct and significant consequences for advocates was made in an administrative vacuum, overlooking their indispensable role in the justice delivery system.

The Logistical Nightmare of Staggered Saturdays

Beyond the principle of consultation, the DHCBA has highlighted the severe practical disruptions the new arrangement would cause. According to the lawyers' body, the staggered schedule, where various benches could be sitting on any given Saturday of the month, effectively forces advocates to remain on call every weekend.

This lack of predictability shatters the structure of a lawyer’s work week. A practitioner with matters before multiple benches would have to be prepared for a hearing on any Saturday, eliminating the possibility of a consistent weekend for rest, family commitments, or preparation for the upcoming week. The DHCBA’s letter notes that this "effectively results in lawyers being required to work on all Saturdays, without any uniformity and predictability."

This, the Association argues, will "disrupt work-life balance and impose disproportionate burdens on the members of the Bar." The legal profession is already notorious for its demanding hours, and this move is seen by many as an additional strain that could contribute to professional burnout, particularly among junior advocates and smaller law firms that lack extensive support staff.

Proposed Alternatives: A Call for Compromise

Recognizing the underlying goal of reducing judicial backlog, the DHCBA has not outright rejected the concept of working Saturdays. Instead, it has proposed a pragmatic compromise. The association has formally requested the High Court to either keep the notification "in abeyance" for further discussion or, alternatively, to streamline the process.

"Alternatively, the sittings may be held on one fixed Saturday for all Benches to facilitate convenience and predictability,” the representation suggests. This solution would achieve the High Court's objective of adding working days to the calendar while providing the legal community with the certainty and structure needed to manage their schedules and professional obligations effectively. A single, designated working Saturday for all benches would allow lawyers to plan their month, ensuring that only one weekend is impacted, thereby mitigating the severe disruption threatened by the current, staggered plan.

Broader Implications for Bar-Bench Relations

This standoff in Delhi is more than a local administrative dispute; it is a case study in the delicate dynamics of Bar-Bench relations across India. The judiciary's push for efficiency, driven by staggering case backlogs, often clashes with the operational realities faced by lawyers. While technology and administrative reforms are essential, the DHCBA's protest serves as a potent reminder that the human element—the lawyers who prepare, argue, and facilitate the judicial process—cannot be overlooked.

Successful judicial reform requires collaboration, not top-down directives. The "sense of exclusion" articulated by the DHCBA is a warning signal that when stakeholders are not included in the decision-making process, even well-intentioned initiatives can face resistance and fail to achieve their intended outcomes. The High Court's response to the DHCBA’s representation will be closely watched, as it will not only determine the working calendar for 2025 but also set a precedent for the future of collaborative governance within the Indian judicial system.