The Bombay High Court on Friday announced that it will not pass any adverse orders against lawyers who are unable to reach court due to heavy rains lashing the city and surrounding regions. The directive came in response to a warning issued by the India Meteorological Department (IMD) predicting intense rainfall that could inundate low-lying and urban areas, potentially triggering flash floods.
IMD warning and court's response
The IMD had issued a red alert for Mumbai and several districts in Maharashtra, forecasting extremely heavy rainfall over the next 48 hours. The warning highlighted risks of waterlogging, disruption to transport, and damage to infrastructure. In light of this, the Bombay High Court took a pragmatic approach to ensure that legal proceedings are not hindered by the adverse weather conditions.
A division bench of the court, while hearing a routine matter, observed that advocates and litigants should not suffer due to circumstances beyond their control. The court stated that it would take a lenient view of absences and adjournments requested on account of the heavy downpour.
Assurance to the legal fraternity
The bench clarified that no coercive steps or adverse orders would be passed against lawyers who fail to appear before the court because of the rain. The court also urged litigants to cooperate and not press for strict action against their counsel if they are delayed or absent.
The decision was welcomed by the Bar Association, which had earlier requested the court to consider the difficulties faced by advocates in commuting. Many lawyers had reported severe delays and cancellations of local trains and buses, making it nearly impossible to reach the court premises on time.
Impact on court proceedings
The heavy rains have already disrupted normal life in Mumbai, with several roads submerged and flights diverted. The court's order is expected to ease the pressure on the legal community, allowing them to prioritize safety without fear of professional repercussions.
The Bombay High Court's move mirrors similar steps taken by other courts in the past during natural calamities. It underscores the judiciary's sensitivity to ground realities and its commitment to ensuring access to justice without penalizing those affected by force majeure events.
