As the Rajasthan High Court reopened after its winter recess, normal judicial functioning was disrupted due to a boycott by lawyers at its principal seat in Jodhpur and the Jaipur Bench. The protest, led by various bar associations, is directed against the High Court administration’s decision to introduce night courts and enforce mandatory working Saturdays, measures that lawyers claim were implemented without adequate consultation with the legal fraternity.
According to representatives of the bar, the sudden introduction of extended working hours and additional working days places an unreasonable burden on advocates, court staff, and litigants. Lawyers argue that the judicial system functions as a collaborative ecosystem, and any major procedural or structural change must involve meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders, including advocates, clerks, and supporting staff. The absence of such consultation, they contend, undermines institutional harmony and professional dignity.
One of the primary concerns raised relates to infrastructure and resource constraints. Many court complexes in Rajasthan, particularly at the district and bench levels, reportedly lack adequate lighting, security arrangements, transport facilities, and administrative support to sustain night court operations. Lawyers have expressed apprehension about personal safety, especially for women advocates and staff, during late working hours. They also point out that the availability of judicial officers, stenographers, clerks, and police personnel during extended hours remains uncertain.
The bar associations have also criticized the concept of mandatory working Saturdays, stating that advocates are independent professionals rather than salaried employees. They argue that compelling lawyers to attend court on Saturdays interferes with their right to manage their professional schedules, prepare cases, and attend to personal obligations. For many practitioners, Saturdays are traditionally used for case preparation, legal research, or appearances in other forums.
From the lawyers’ perspective, the measures may not necessarily lead to faster disposal of cases, which is often cited as the justification for such reforms. Instead, they assert that the problem of pendency stems from vacancies of judges, inadequate courtrooms, and insufficient administrative support, rather than limited working hours. Without addressing these structural deficiencies, extending court hours could result in fatigue, reduced efficiency, and compromised quality of justice.
The High Court administration, on the other hand, has emphasized the need to adopt innovative measures to reduce case backlogs and improve access to justice. Night courts and additional working days are seen as part of broader judicial reforms aimed at increasing productivity and expediting hearings, especially in routine or less complex matters. Supporters of the move argue that similar initiatives in other jurisdictions have yielded positive results.
However, the boycott highlights the delicate balance between judicial efficiency and stakeholder consensus. While courts possess the administrative authority to regulate working hours, sustained reforms require cooperation from the bar, which plays a central role in the justice delivery system. Prolonged boycotts, meanwhile, directly impact litigants, many of whom travel long distances and bear significant financial and emotional costs when hearings are stalled.
The Rajasthan High Court lawyers’ boycott thus underscores a recurring challenge in judicial administration: implementing reforms without alienating key stakeholders. As dialogue between the bar and the bench continues, the situation serves as a reminder that meaningful judicial reform must be consultative, inclusive, and sensitive to ground realities, ensuring that efficiency does not come at the cost of fairness, safety, or professional autonomy.