The Calcutta High Court Bar Association has rejected a proposal to increase the number of working days of the court by not staying away to mourn a colleague’s death.

In a letter dated February 3, the state bar council requested the members of all the 172 bar associations across the state not to disrupt the functioning of the courts to mourn the deaths of their colleagues.

“The council proposed that the association members hold memorial meetings during recess and work normally before and after the break. But it is impossible for us to break our tradition,” said Rana Mukherjee, the high court bar association secretary.

In 2010, Calcutta High Court had functioned only 190 days. In comparison, Bombay and Delhi high courts had clocked 215 working days each and Chennai High Court had functioned 221 days. Over 3 lakh cases are pending in Calcutta High Court and over 17 lakh in the 202 subordinate courts.

Bar council members believe the burden of pending cases can be reduced if lawyers do not suspend work for a day every time a colleague dies.

In January, Calcutta High Court functioned only 18 days, thanks to the association’s decision not to attend court on six days to mourn the deaths of members.

“The situation is as alarming in the subordinate courts. There are instances of subordinate courts not functioning because a clerk had died. It is not that all lawyers are earning so much money that they don’t need to work. Thousands of junior lawyers depend on the courts functioning daily,” said Bimal Chatterjee, the chairman of the bar council.

“Litigants who come from far away suffer the most because of this practice. In other high courts, lawyers organise memorial meetings before or after the court hours,” he added.

The Supreme Court had ruled that each high court would have to function at least 210 days a year. “Calcutta High Court is the only high court which is not bothered about the apex court ruling,” said another council member.

The association secretary claimed other factors hamper the functioning of the court more than suspension of work.

“The court has been running with only 41 judges, against a sanctioned strength of 58. Litigants are not getting justice in time and they are losing faith in lawyers. Our repeated requests to fill up the vacant seats have not been heeded,” said Mukherjee.

A section of the bar association members is in favour of accepting the proposal.

“Only the smooth functioning of the courts can provide relief to litigants,” said advocate Subroto Mookherjee, an association member.