Delhi HC rejects PIL to discontinue summer vacations in courts


(UNI) The Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to discontinue its summer vacation on the grounds that pendency of cases is mounting and said that the courts do not close as the judges keep working during this time.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice BD Ahmed and Justice Vibhu Bakhru turned down the PIL filed by a registered society Praksh India and said the petitioner is not aware of the functioning of the courts as most of the judges write their judgement during this period.

The Court expunged the plea of the society seeking to quash the 2013 circular which notified the vacation period from June 1 to 30.

The bench said the courts keep working as vacation judges sit regularly. Most of the judges spend their time studying the cases and writing judgements, the bench observed.

Saying that courts cannot be compared to other organisations, the bench also turned down the petitioner’s suggestion that either the judges should avail the vacation on rotation basis like police officers, or the HC should curtail the number of vacation days to 10 or 15, instead of 30 days.

The bench said it is practically impossible to run courts on rotation as there will be absolute chaos if courts function like this.

The petitioner further said the courts should also maintain 210 working days as per the Central government communication.

Appearing on behalf of the society, petitioner Suraj Prakash Manchanda, a retired bank officer, said 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. UNI

Class Notes on Criminal Law 1 – Unit V (1st Sem / 3 year LL.B)

Study Notes on Criminal Law 1 / Indian Penal Code (IPC) – UNIT V

Mischief (Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 425 – 440)

425. Mischief. —

Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, cause the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”.

Explanation 1. —It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.

Explanation 2. —Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly.


(a) A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(b) A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(c) A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby causing wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(d) A, knowing that his effects are about to be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due from him to Z, destroys those effects, with the intention of thereby preventing Z from obtaining satisfaction of the debt, and of thus causing damage to Z. A has committed mischief.
Register for more!