Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Mandamus to Enforce Court Sitting Hours Against Judges

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali dismissed a PIL filed by an advocate seeking enforcement of a 2008 Full Court resolution on court sitting hours, holding the petition misconceived and the relief sought untenable.

The Chief Justice's Court at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed PIL No. 1756 of 2026 on 28 July 2026, filed by Arun Mishra, a practising advocate of the Court. The petition sought a direction to enforce a Full Court resolution dated 27 August 2008, which prescribes court sitting hours from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, found the petition misconceived on its face and dismissed it in limine. The core problem identified by the bench was that the relief essentially amounted to a mandamus directed against the judges of the Court, which the bench held could not be entertained.

The Grievance Raised in the PIL

Arun Mishra appeared in person. His petition alleged that certain courts within the Allahabad High Court had, on a particular day, not convened at the hours fixed by the Full Court resolution of 27 August 2008. The resolution in question sets out the schedule under which courts are required to sit: the forenoon session running from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., and the afternoon session from 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.

The petitioner sought a direction compelling adherence to these hours, framing the matter as one of public interest.

Why the Bench Found the Petition Misconceived

The Division Bench identified two distinct infirmities in the petition.

The first was factual incompleteness. The bench observed that the petition was “based on incomplete facts” because the petitioner had not indicated how many courts on that particular day had in fact sat beyond the prescribed time and continued to discharge judicial work. The selective picture presented — highlighting courts that allegedly did not sit at the fixed hour while ignoring those that may have sat beyond it — meant the grievance was not supported by a complete account of what actually occurred on the day in question.

The second, and more fundamental, objection went to the nature of the relief sought. The bench noted that the petition was essentially seeking a mandamus directed against the judges of the Court. Such a direction, the bench held, “cannot be countenanced.” A writ of mandamus is ordinarily issued to compel a public authority to perform a legal duty. Directing judges of the same court to sit at prescribed hours, through a writ petition, raises an obvious issue of institutional propriety and judicial independence that the bench found dispositive.

The respondent, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar General, was represented by Advocate Ashish Mishra.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed PIL No. 1756 of 2026 as misconceived on 28 July 2026. No directions were issued. The petition was disposed of at the threshold without calling for any response on the merits of the sitting-hours grievance.