Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Enforcement Of Court Sitting Hours; Says Mandamus Against HC Judges Can't Be 'Countenanced'
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking to enforce a 2008 Full Court resolution prescribing court sitting hours. The bench said that a writ of mandamus directed against judges of the High Court "cannot be countenanced".
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra also observed that the petition filed by a practising advocate of the High Court was founded on "incomplete facts".
"…the petitioner has not cared to indicate as to how many Courts on that particular day sat beyond the time fixed and continued to discharge the judicial work", the Court observed.
The PIL, filed by Advocate Arun Mishra, sought enforcement of the Full Court resolution dated August 27, 2008, prescribing court sitting hours from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The petitioner alleged that on May 5, 2026, several courts did not commence proceedings at the prescribed time despite being listed to function that day.
According to the petition, proceedings on that day had begun in only a limited number of courts at 10:05 a.m., while several others commenced at 10:10 a.m., 10:15 a.m., and 10:20 a.m.
It was further alleged in his PIL plea that a number of courts had still not assembled by 10:30 a.m. The petitioner also claimed that similar delays were witnessed after the lunch recess.
Courts routinely do not follow the resolution dated of this High Court and that too without any prior intimation, the PIL plea submitted while claiming that the petitioner's sole purpose was to bring transparency in the functioning of this constitutional office.
Regarding the High Court's budgetary expenditure, the petitioner submitted that it is not being returned due to the court's delayed sitting.
The petition further sought the publication of information regarding delayed sittings on the notice board and in the cause list so that advocates and litigants could be informed in advance.
However, dealing with the PIL plea, the Chief Justice-led Bench found the foundation of the PIL to be deficient.
"The nature of relief, which has been sought in the petition, is based on incomplete facts as the petitioner has not cared to indicate as to how many Courts on that particular day sat beyond the time fixed and continued to discharge the judicial work", the Court observed.
The Court also found the relief claimed to be legally not maintainable.
"...seeking a mandamus, which essentially is directed against the Judges of this Court, cannot be countenanced," the Bench observed.
Holding that the petition was misconceived, the High Court dismissed the PIL.
For context, the resolution referred to in the PIL plea was passed on August 27, 2008, in the following terms:
"Pursuant to the Full Court resolution dated 12.07.2008 at agendum 10, with effect from Monday the 1t Septemb,er, 2008, the Court sitting hours of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for the Courts sitting at Allahabad would be from 10.00 A.M. to 01.00 P.M. and 02.00 P.M. to 04.00 P.M. with lunch break from 01.00 Р.M. to 02.00 P.M. As far as the Courts sitting at Lucknow are concerned, the Court sitting hours will continue to be as they are presently. No. The previous orders in this behalf stand modified to this extent".
Case title - Arun Mishra vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 483
Case Citatio : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 483