Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Adjournment Amid 'No Work Day', Emphasizes Duty During National Crisis

Introduction

In a landmark moment showcasing the judiciary's commitment to national duty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to grant adjournment on the basis of a “No Work Day” declared by the Bar Association. This decision, delivered amid escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, underscores a crucial message: national responsibilities cannot pause even when challenges mount.

The judgment highlights the role of the judiciary during times of national crisis and the importance of continuing essential services, especially in the digital era where virtual hearings are possible. 

Background of the Case

What Led to the Adjournment Request?

On May 9, 2025, during a scheduled hearing on the contentious Bhakra Beas water-sharing issue, the counsel representing the Punjab Government sought an adjournment. The reason? The Bar Association had declared it a “No Work Day,” citing heightened security concerns and the possibility of air strikes in Chandigarh, following India-Pakistan border escalations.

The counsel submitted that they were bound to honor the Bar's directive as the Bar Council governs advocates' licenses.

However, the High Court—presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel—was not persuaded.

The Court’s Observations

Firm Stance on Duty

The Bench made a strong statement about responsibility and service during national emergencies:

“When our forces are fighting on the battlefield, you can’t sit at home and rest. If everyone does that, the entire system of the country will come to a grinding halt.”

No Justification for Non-Appearance

The judges pointed out that technological solutions like video conferencing are available for those concerned about physical safety. The court made it clear that lawyers had every opportunity to attend virtually if unable to appear in person.

“If you want to work from home, the video conference facility allows everyone to connect.”

This observation drew attention to how digital tools can bridge gaps even during times of crisis, especially in professions like law, where continuity is vital.

The Bar's 'No Work Day': Safety or Overreach?

Why Was 'No Work Day' Declared?

The High Court Bar Association had announced May 9 as a "No Work Day" due to:

1. Advisories of possible air strikes in Chandigarh.

2. Power outages and growing regional instability due to border hostilities.

While the decision was ostensibly made in the interest of safety, it raised questions about the balance between safety and constitutional duty.

Is the Bar Council’s Direction Binding?

Lawyers often cite Bar Council instructions as binding, but courts have previously held that counsel’s duty to the court is paramount, especially in critical cases.

In this instance, the High Court's decision reinforced that judicial proceedings cannot be derailed by non-binding directives if national interest is at stake.

The Water Dispute at the Center of the Hearing

What Is the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB)?

The BBMB is a statutory body that manages the Bhakra Nangal and Beas Projects, crucial for supplying water and electricity to Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan.

Why Was the Court Involved?

The case stemmed from a contempt petition filed by a Gram Panchayat. The petition alleged that Punjab Police had interfered with the operations of the BBMB, despite the High Court’s earlier restraining orders.

The hearing was intended to:

1. Evaluate whether the Punjab Police violated court orders.

2. Review if contempt proceedings should be initiated.

Key Developments During the Hearing

Contempt Allegations

The core issue centered around whether the Punjab Police unlawfully prevented the release of 200 cusecs of water from the Bhakra Dam to Haryana.

The Chairman of BBMB, Manoj Tripathi, stated via video conference that:

1. BBMB officers were restrained.

2. He was himself “gheraoed” at a guest house and had to be rescued.

These are serious allegations, and the Court expressed concern over non-compliance with judicial directions.

Video Testimonies and Affidavit Filings

The Court directed Tripathi to file a sworn affidavit confirming the details.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain was also asked to submit the minutes of a May 2 meeting that reportedly approved the release of 4,500 cusecs of additional water to Haryana over eight days.

Because the hearing was advanced from 4 PM to 12 PM, the affidavit wasn't ready. Jain assured it would be submitted by the 4 PM session.

The Court’s Strong Message: Institutions Must Not Collapse

By refusing the adjournment, the Bench made a wider point about the integrity of public institutions during crises.

Their remarks serve as a reminder that:

1. The judiciary must remain functional during national emergencies.

2. Lawyers have an ethical and professional obligation to appear, especially when digital means are available.

Such decisions bolster public trust in the judicial system and ensure that critical governance mechanisms do not break down during turbulent times.

Legal and Constitutional Significance

Article 142 and Judicial Powers

Though not invoked directly in this order, this judgment echoes the spirit of Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to do “complete justice” in any case. High Courts, too, are empowered under their writ jurisdiction to ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied.

By proceeding with the hearing and addressing violations of previous orders, the Court upheld the rule of law and its duty to maintain judicial oversight.

Duty Over Comfort: A Broader Message

Lessons for Other Professions

The ruling serves as a broader metaphor for various professionals across the country:

1. Healthcare workers, police officers, journalists, and utility providers often work through crises.

2. The legal community must do the same when the nation is in a sensitive situation.

The judgment sends a clear message: public responsibilities do not stop because of personal inconvenience or institutional declarations.

Impact on the Water Dispute

Relevance of the Hearing

The hearing will now play a pivotal role in determining:

1. Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated.

2. Whether Punjab Police officials violated the High Court’s prior orders.

The outcome could affect interstate water-sharing protocols and reinforce the BBMB’s autonomy.

Potential Legal Precedents

If the Court does proceed with contempt charges:

1. It may set a precedent for how disobedience to court orders by state authorities is treated.

2. It could establish clear boundaries for police interference in administrative decisions taken by bodies like BBMB.

Court’s Next Steps

The High Court rescheduled the matter to 4 PM the same day for:

1. Submission of affidavits.

2. Presentation of meeting minutes.

3. Deciding whether contempt notices should be issued.

This accelerated schedule shows the urgency and importance the Court attaches to the matter.

Reactions from the Legal Community

Mixed Views

1. Some senior lawyers supported the Court’s stance, saying that justice must continue uninterrupted.

2. Others expressed concern over safety, arguing that the Bar’s directive was precautionary.

Nevertheless, the prevailing sentiment was one of admiration for the judiciary’s commitment.

Conclusion

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to adjourn proceedings during a “No Work Day” highlights the judiciary’s unwavering dedication to its constitutional duties, even during times of national crisis. This move not only reinforced the sanctity of the court’s orders but also sent a powerful message about institutional resilience.

By putting national duty above personal convenience, the Court has reminded every citizen and professional of their role in maintaining the country’s democratic and administrative fabric—even when faced with uncertainty.