The decision to forgo morning courts in Muzaffarpur this season has ignited debate within legal circles, with former Bar Association Secretary Praveen Kumar leading the charge against what he calls a ‘dangerous precedent.’ In an interview, Kumar dissected the breakdown in protocol that has left the district court in limbo.
Under Patna High Court guidelines, morning sessions—ideal for Bihar’s brutal summers—kicked off early April and ended late June. Yet, over the past couple of years, authority has been handed to local judicial and bar leaders: the District Judge, Secretary, and President.
What followed was indecision. The Judge sought the Bar’s input, but leaders balked, resorting to a public survey. The verdict? Day courts. ‘This is absurd,’ Kumar fumed. ‘Tradition dictated morning courts for a reason—productivity in cooler hours.’
Venturing into broader governance parallels, Kumar likened the fiasco to absurd scenarios in legislatures. Imagine a Chief Minister polling voters on bill passage, or a Prime Minister crowd-sourcing Lok Sabha decisions. ‘Laws wouldn’t get made,’ he quipped. The Bar’s duty mirrors this: decisive action from elected officials, not populist stunts.
Kumar didn’t mince words on motives. ‘Public opinions are a smokescreen for leaders to shine politically and cling to power,’ he charged. With no morning courts, efficiency suffers, cases pile up, and justice delays mount. Legal experts now call for High Court intervention to restore clarity and continuity, preventing future flip-flops that hamstring the system.
