Back
Boycotts Working Saturdays
In a significant escalation of tensions between the Bar and the Bench, the Bar Association ( ) has unanimously resolved to call upon its members to abstain from work on the , designated as court sitting days by the . This protest action, commencing from , underscores deep concerns over practical disruptions to lawyers' professional lives and the lack of consultation prior to the mandate's imposition. Signed by President and Honorary Secretary , the resolution highlights a collective stand against what the Bar views as an ill-considered administrative decision.
The move, passed by the Executive Committee on , comes after repeated representations to the High Court went unheeded. As the legal fraternity braces for potential disruptions in court functioning, this development raises critical questions about , judicial efficiency, and the balance between case pendency reduction efforts and practitioners' realities.
Background: The Genesis of the Working Saturdays Mandate
The controversy traces back to a decision taken by the of the during its meeting on . Announced publicly on , the resolution mandated that every Bench of the would observe one working Saturday every month —specifically the first and third Saturdays. This was positioned as a measure to address the mounting backlog of cases, with the grappling with over 70,000 pending matters as of late 2025, according to official statistics.
The rationale behind the policy was clear: to enhance judicial productivity amid India's overburdened higher judiciary. Nationally, the pendency crisis is acute, with the 25 High Courts collectively handling more than 6 million cases. The has periodically experimented with extended hours, including half-day Saturday sittings in urgent matters. However, the 's blanket monthly mandate marked a more structured shift, applying across all Benches without exceptions.
Almost immediately, the
voiced apprehensions. In statements issued days after the announcement, the association expressed
"the highest regard for the decisions of the
"
but lamented the absence of prior consultation or information sharing with the Bar. Multiple representations were submitted urging reconsideration, citing logistical nightmares for practitioners. Yet, no revisions were forthcoming, paving the way for the boycott resolution.
DHCBA's Unanimous Resolution: A Call to Abstai
The Executive Committee's meeting on March 27 culminated in a strongly worded notice disseminated to all members. It explicitly requests cooperation in abstaining from work on the targeted Saturdays, framing it as a principled protest rather than outright defiance.
A key verbatim excerpt from the resolution states: “As such, all members of the Bar Association are requested to co-operate and abstain from work on the 1 and 3rd Saturdays of every month, starting from .” To mitigate complete halts in proceedings, the notice adds: “Further, it is informed that shall be designated for each court, on these days.”
This proxy system—where designated lawyers cover appearances—aims to ensure minimal service continuity for litigants. However, critics within the Bar argue it dilutes effective representation, as proxy counsel may lack full case familiarity.
The resolution's signatories, President N. Hariharan—a senior advocate with decades of practice—and Secretary , emphasize the collective leadership's endorsement, lending it formidable weight. The , representing over 20,000 lawyers, wields significant influence, making this more than a symbolic gesture.
Lawyers' Grievances: Serious Practical Difficulties
At the heart of the protest are the "serious practical difficulties" articulated in members' representations, which the Executive Committee duly noted. Lawyers have flagged disruptions to meticulously planned professional schedules, including:
- Appearances before tribunals, arbitrations, mediations, and courts outside Delhi : Many advocates juggle multi-jurisdictional practices, with key hearings often fixed on Saturdays to avoid weekday clashes.
- Adverse impact on preparation time : Saturday sittings encroach on the weekend, traditionally reserved for case research, drafting, and strategy.
- Client meetings and overall professional efficiency : Weekend work exacerbates burnout in an already high-pressure profession, potentially compromising quality.
One representation highlighted: “The Executive Committee also considered the representations received from the members of the Bar highlighting the serious practical difficulties arising from Saturday sittings.” These concerns resonate widely, as Indian lawyers often operate in a fragmented ecosystem with overlapping commitments across forums like , , , and arbitral panels.
Proxy Arrangements and Reiterated Plea for Reconsideration
The proxy counsel designation is a pragmatic concession, ensuring that critical matters—such as bail hearings or urgent injunctions—do not entirely grind to a halt. Yet, it underscores the Bar's firm stance: participation in the mandated sittings is untenable without dialogue.
The resolution reiterates the request for reconsideration of the mandatory decision , urging the High Court administration to engage stakeholders. This echoes broader calls for collaborative judicial administration, where Bar input shapes operational policies.
Historical Context: Precedents in Bar-Bench Tensions
This is not the first instance of friction over court timings in India. In 2019, lawyers across multiple High Courts protested against perceived overreach, leading to temporary shutdowns. The itself has oscillated: post-2018, it introduced summer vacations with Saturday urgent matters, but full working Saturdays were rare. Other High Courts, like and , have experimented with extended hours sans widespread backlash, often after consultations.
The Delhi scenario stands out due to the scale and unanimity. Historically, the has been vocal on issues like infrastructure, e-filing glitches, and judge transfers, fostering a robust bar-bench rapport through dialogue. This boycott risks straining that bond, potentially inviting or administrative sanctions—though unlikely given the measured tone.
Legal and Practical Implications: A Delicate Balance
Legally, the 's authority stems from its inherent administrative powers under (control over subordinate judiciary) and High Court rules. However, mandating Bar participation indirectly tests cooperative federalism in judicial functioning. No statute compels lawyers to appear on notified days, but non-appearance could lead to adjournments, costs, or .
Practically, implications are profound: - For litigants : Delays in case progression, especially non-urgent matters, exacerbating the pendency woes the mandate seeks to cure. - Judicial productivity : Benches may sit partially staffed, undermining the policy's efficacy. - Work-life balance : Highlights the legal profession's toll—long hours, travel—amid rising mental health concerns.
From a policy lens, data suggests extended sittings yield marginal gains without systemic reforms like more judges (DHC sanctioned strength: 60, working ~50). A 2023 report pegged average disposal time at 4-5 years for civil suits, underscoring deeper issues.
Broader Impact on the Indian Judiciary
This standoff reverberates nationally. As a premier High Court handling constitutional, commercial, and criminal appeals, Delhi's operations influence jurisprudence. A sustained boycott could prompt similar actions elsewhere, challenging the 's push for 24/7 courts (virtually). It also spotlights gender disparities: women lawyers, balancing family, bear disproportionate burdens from weekend work.
For legal professionals, it prompts reflection on professional ethics ( rules emphasize efficiency) versus self-preservation. Firms with Delhi practices may adapt via rotas, but solo practitioners suffer most.
Outlook: Path to Resolution Ahead?
While the boycott starts , the 's door remains open for talks, as evidenced by the reiterated plea. Precedents favor negotiation—recall 2022's amicable resolution on hybrid hearings. The High Court may tweak the mandate, perhaps limiting Saturdays to specific Benches or urgent dockets.
Ultimately, this episode underscores the need for inclusive policymaking. In India's , a harmonious Bar-Bench is the bedrock of justice delivery. As lawyers prepare proxies and the courts assess options, stakeholders watch closely for a denouement that prioritizes collective efficacy over unilateral edicts.
