Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

A Plea has been filed today, by a woman namely, Sabina Lakdawala before the Bombay High Court, challenging the colonial relic of shutting down courts for weeks, almost a month, in the name of Diwali, Christmas, and midsummer vacation.

The plea states that the long vacations that are a relic of the colonial era have contributed to the further collapse of the already collapsing justice delivery system, and suits the convenience of a microscopic minority of elite lawyers. Lakdawala in her plea challenged the long vacations for the High Court will be closed for three weeks for Diwali, with only a small number of Justices to hear emergent cases, affecting her right to seek justice within a reasonable time.

Lakdawala, the widow of the late Yousuf M. Lakdawala, a well-known builder and film financier, claims that the court has failed to grant her justice despite her vigorous pursuit of the cause and case being listed or mentioned for at least 158 days since she was evicted from her home on July 4, 2021.

She further states that her in-laws, particularly her stepson, stepdaughter, and step-grandchildren, had dragged her out of her house in the early hours of July 4, 2021, with the help and support of political connections and the local police station. The plea also stated that closing courts for vacations violate Lakdawala's fundamental rights, putting his life and limbs in jeopardy and rendering them nugatory.

The petitioner states that her in-laws, using their political and bureaucratic connections, got her arrested on the false charges that she threw a glass vase at her daughter-in-law and seriously injured her and that she suffered a minor injury during the scuffle. Thereafter, Lakdawala was booked under Section 326 IPC. She approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail and High Court to quash the FIR.

She alleges that her lawyer during the Covid pandemic repeatedly moved applications for urgent hearings. Still, no hearing was granted until an audience was sought with the Judge in his chambers, making an exemption from the Covid-19 protocols. It is further contended that it took more than three months to obtain the relief that she would not be arrested, despite the fact that the injury she was accused of committing was a simple injury under Section 323 that was non-cognizable and bailable.

Under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, the High Court relegated Lakdawala to the Magistrate, wherein it has the authority to issue ex parte orders, grant access to the shared household, protect her body and belongings and grant her other legal rights. However, exactly on the day of passing the order, the Magistrate went on long leave without passing any orders and aggrieved by such conduct she approached the High Court during the Diwali holidays in 2021.

Lakdawala states that to her dismay, the High Court was closed for vacation and that the registry did not entertain any petition without the leave of the vacation judge. However, after a herculean task, she was able to get her petition listed, and the high court directed the magistrate to pass an order on or before November 10, 2021.

Lakdawala further states that again on the date the case was rescheduled, the Magistrate went on a long leave and reacted with anger to her insistence for ad interim protection to be heard and appropriate orders issued. The Magistrate dismissed the application for interim relief after serving notice on her in-laws. Aggrieved by the Magistrate's conduct the petitioner approached the division bench of the High Court which directed the Magistrate to pass an order on her interim application within a month.

She further alleges that vide order dated February 23, 2022, the Magistrate granted her namesake ad interim relief. It is further stated that even the mediation process failed as no one appeared from her in-laws in a single session.

Lakdawala contends that it has been one year and three months since she was dragged out of her home by the police at the instance of her in-laws, and she is yet to get any relief. The plea states, “Her case was either on the list, mentioned or heard in the various forums, on at the very least 160 days. Figures speak better than words.”

“Court vacation, a relic of our colonial past, the Petitioner is made to understand, was justified at a time when the majority of the judges were Englishmen who were not adjusted to the extreme summers of India, and they needed long vacations to travel by sea to England. It was a necessity then, today, it is a luxury that the country can ill afford,” the plea states.

The plea further states that instead of closing the courts for the entire duration of the Diwali, Christmas, and midsummer holidays, they should be kept open at half-strength. Festivals such as Diwali and Christmas are sacred to us Indians.

“A section of the judges and lawyers may insist that they be allowed to take leave. But it is certainly not the case that every lawyer and every judge wants to take two- and three-week-long breaks. For the time being, respecting the views of the section of the bench and the bar that bat for vacation, instead of the current practice of two or three judges being appointed as vacation benches, the Courts be made to work at least with 50 percent capacity and eventually in the near future the Courts working at full strength”, the plea adds.

Case Title: Sabina Lakdawala vs. The Hon’ble Chief Justice High Court of Bombay & Ors.