The Delhi High Court declined to grant immediate relief in a batch of applications seeking suspension of sentence during the Court’s vacation sitting, observing that vacation benches are not meant to handle matters that should ordinarily be placed before the regular roster bench.
The matter was mentioned before the vacation bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna seeking suspension of sentence. Counsel appearing for the appellants repeatedly urged the Court to consider at least one appellant who is a senior citizen and who had been sentenced to two months’ imprisonment under Section 323 IPC.
Counsel submitted that the appellants had suffered due to incorrect legal advice from their previous counsel and argued that the appellant’s (senior citizen) case warranted immediate consideration given the short duration of her sentence and her personal circumstances.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, however, questioned why the matter had not been properly pursued before the roster bench and expressed its displeasure at the growing tendency of litigants to approach vacation courts for relief that could be sought through the ordinary course. At one stage, the Court remarked:
“
“Understand that vacation judges are not sitting for your regular work…You create work here, you create work for the district court.”
Attempting to explain the circumstances, counsel submitted that the appellants had been misled by their previous counsel and procedural lapses had occurred because they were not properly advised regarding surrender and the filing of suspension applications. He said:
“
“They were not given proper guidance. The (previous) learned counsel for the appellants should have guided them. They should have immediately surrendered and then their application would have been entertained. In my 38 years of career, I have come across such a case for the first time….Grave injustice against appellant.”
However, the Court remained unconvinced and observed that litigants often become victims of poor legal advice. When counsel pleaded for mercy, stating that the appellant was a senior citizen and that her daughter-in-law was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, the Court remarked: “Only the courts have mercy. The advocates don’t have mercy. Your litigants, your clients, you misguided them.”
The Court observed that the matter was not one that required intervention during the vacation sitting and such applications should ordinarily be placed before the appropriate roster bench. Ultimately, the court declined to grant immediate suspension of sentence and directed that the matter be listed before the regular bench on July 10, 2026, for further consideration.