Madras HC Registrar opposes PIL against holiday family courts

Opposing a PIL by a woman lawyer against the functioning of holiday family courts on the ground it caused inconvenience to advocates, the Madras High Court Registrar General (RG) today submitted in the court that these courts had been constituted in the larger interest of litigant public for speedy settlement of disputes.
An affidavit filed by the RG sought dismissal of the petition by senior lawyer Sudha Ramalingam seeking to declare the functioning of the holiday court here as illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional since under relevant rules the high court could not order the family courts to function on holidays.

It said as per Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 no party to the disputes were entitled to be represented by legal practioners except when the court itself can seek assistance of amicus curiae in the interest of justice.
Hence practicing advocates cannot be a person/persons affected by the proceedings of the courts held on holidays, the affidavit filed before a Division Bench Comprising Justice Sathish K. Agnihotri and Justice K.K. Sasidharan submitted.
It further said the holiday courts had received overwhelming response from all quarters as the proceedings in the Family Courts are mainly litigant centric and not on the availability of legal practitioners who have only limited role as permitted under section 13 of the act. After the holiday courts started functioning in 2010, disposal of cases had increased by more than 25 per cent.

The bench posted the matter to February 5 for further hearing.

The petitioner submitted that women lawyers were facing difficulties in attending courts on weekends ignoring their family and professional commitments.
The Women Lawyers Association here in March last year had passed a resolution opposing the holiday family courts.
She argued that Rule 3 of 1996 rules framed by the Registrar General did not enable the High Court to direct the Family Courts in Chennai to function on holidays.
She also contended that the Judges and staff of Family Courts were governed by the Tamil Nadu Leave rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

Citing several other legal and constitutional points, she sought a direction that the functioning of holiday family courts was illegal and unconstitutional.