Eventful 'Partial Working Days' Of Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

12 July 2025 10:05 AM IST

  • Eventful Partial Working Days Of Supreme Court

    This eventful period underscores that the judiciary is never truly on leave, and justice can never be on vacation.

    Listen to this Article

    Recently, the Supreme Court renamed its summer vacation as "partial court working days". The name change of the annual summer recess time - which often came under ill-informed criticism from some sections on the wrongful perception that judges were having it easy with many vacations - was not a mere superficial exercise, as the Court functioned quite optimally during the period of "partial working days" from May 26 to July 13, with at least two benches sitting every day to hear urgent matters. During some weeks, as many as five benches were working daily. The arrangement ensured that the judicial work did not come to a standstill while allowing judges and lawyers to take much-needed breaks from their hectic schedules on a rotational basis.

    This "partial working days" period was quite eventful, with the Supreme Court making many notable judicial interventions. These benches have addressed pressing legal issues spanning personal liberty, electoral integrity, environmental protection, and professional autonomy, reinforcing the Court's custodial role as the sentinel of fundamental rights under Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution.

    Ensuring Fairness in NEET-PG 2025: Directive for Single-Shift Exam

    In a significant move, the Supreme Court intervened in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-PG) 2025 controversy, directing the National Board of Examinations (NBE) to conduct the exam in a single shift rather than two shifts.

    Many candidates had filed writ petitions challenging the two-shift format of the NEET-PG exam, alleging it creates unfairness due to varying difficulty levels. The Court held that two-shift exam will lead to an uneven playing field.

    The bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice NV Anjaria emphasised the need for uniformity and fairness, preventing potential discrepancies in difficulty levels across shifts. Later, the Court allowed the NBE to extend the date of the exam to August 3 to make arrangements for the single-shift pattern.

    Vacations Spent To Write Judgments, Judges Don't Get Weekend Holidays Too; People Who Criticise Don't Realise This : Justice BR Gavai

    Crackdown on Unlawful Detentions: Jail authorities rebuked for ignoring bail order

    Sending a stern message against authorities who defy bail orders, the Court rebuked the Uttar Pradesh government for failing to release an undertrial despite a bail order, on the technical ground that a sub-section was not mentioned in the order.

    A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh personally summoned the Ghaziabad Jail Superintendent and did not mince words, calling such bureaucratic defiance of judicial directions a “mockery of the justice system.” Importantly, the Court ordered the authorities to grant an interim compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the accused, who had to spent about three additional weeks in prison.

    Protecting Free Speech: "Thug Life" Film Row

    Addressing a plea against the unofficial ban of the film Thug Life in Karnataka, the Supreme Court lamented the growing trend of cases filed over "hurt sentiments," questioning, "Where are we heading?", as there's no end to hurt sentiments in India.

    The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan emphasized that certified films must not be blocked by mob pressure, asserting, “The rule of law demands release if a CBFC certificate exists.” It also disapproved of the Karnataka High Court's suggestion that Actor Kamal Haasan should apologize, calling it “none of the HC's business.”

    'We Continue To Work Even During Court Holidays' : CJI Refutes 'False Narrative' About Easy Life Of Judges

    Safeguarding Legal Profession's Autonomy

    The Court also addressed concerns over the direct summoning of lawyers by the investigating agencies for client-related information, acknowledging the potential threat to the legal profession's autonomy.

    A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh postulated two questions for comprehensive consideration:

    (i) When an individual has association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?

    (ii) Assuming that investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police have a case that the role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer, but something more, even then should they be directly permitted to summon or should judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criteria?

    The Court was hearing the case where the lawyer was served summons under Section 179 BNSS after he appeared for his client in a bail case arising out of a loan dispute.

    It may be recalled that two Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court were recently summoned by the Enforcement Directorate over legal advice given by them to a client. After a protest by the legal community, the summons were eventually withdrawn.

    In furtherance of the growing concerns among the bar members over the trend of investigative agencies summoning advocates for legal advice given to accused persons, the Court initiated a suo motu case to protect the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship. The move was prompted by instances where lawyers were summoned or threatened merely for advising clients, a development the Court considered a serious threat to the autonomy and independence of the legal profession.

    Supreme Court Judges Work 7 Days A Week; Vacations Utilised To Reflect On Pending Constitutional Issues : CJI DY Chandrachud

    Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Exercise: Allowing Use Of Aadhaar, Voter IDs, Ration Card

    During the vacations, the Court heard the important matter relating to the "Special Intensive Revision" of electoral rolls in Bihar.

    The Court urged the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider linking Aadhaar, voter IDs, and ration cards for Bihar's electoral roll revision. The Court also questioned the feasibility of proposed timelines, ensuring due diligence in electoral integrity, observing that the list of 11 documents issued by the ECI was only illustrative. The Court clarified, however, that this was not a binding direction and the ECI retains discretion.

    During the hearing, the bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned the timing of the move, when assembly elections are just months away, and asked if citizenship determination was the ECI's mandate.

    Petitioners, including Members of Parliament Mahua Moitra, Manoj Jha, KC Venugopal, activist Yogendra Yadav, and civil society groups such as ADR and PUCL, challenged the legality and timing of the SIR. They alleged it could disenfranchise over 4 crore voters, especially the poor, Dalits, Muslims, and migrants, due to arbitrary documentation requirements which excluded the use of Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration card.

    Upholding Criminal Justice: Acquittals & Victim Rights

    In a notable ruling, uploaded during the vacation time, the Court clarified that victims of offences can file appeals against acquittals under Section 372 CrPC, even if they were not the original complainants, strengthening victim rights. The Court noted that the definition of "victim" has been couched in broad terms, and Section 372 gives an absolute right to the victims to file an appeal without any conditions. The Court also held that complainants in cheque dishonour cases can file appeals under S.372 CrPC against acquittals.

    Environmental Protection: Delhi Ridge Contempt Case

    The Supreme Court also pronounced the judgment in the Delhi ridge tree felling matter. It criticized the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for unauthorized tree-felling in the protected Delhi Ridge area, conducted for a road-widening project to benefit a paramilitary hospital. The Court termed the officials' actions a clear case of criminal contempt, citing both non-compliance with legal procedure and deliberate concealment of facts from the judiciary.

    Noting the seriousness of the environmental damage, the court imposed a ₹25,000 fine on each responsible DDA official. The Court's continued vigilant oversight in environmental matters, issuing contempt notices in the Delhi Ridge tree-felling case, reinforces the imperative of ecological conservation.

    Fake Encounters Probe in Assam

    Taking cognizance of alleged fake encounters in Assam, the Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to independently investigate allegations of 171 alleged fake police encounters in the state of Assam, the Court emphasized that any violation of the right to life under Article 21 must be taken seriously and addressed through proper legal scrutiny.

    The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional principle that encounters cannot substitute due process, and any glorification of extrajudicial methods undermines democratic values. The Court also acknowledged the petitioner's standing and role in highlighting possible systemic violations, even though the data cited came from state records.

    Some Important Appointments & Collegium Recommendations

    During this period, three new appointments were made with Justices NV Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi, and AS Chandurkar taking oath as Supreme Court Judges. Also, the Supreme Court collegium was quite active, making several recommendations, including a recommendation for appointment of new Chief Justices in five High Courts, transfer of 4 High Court Chief Justices, appointment of 5 Advocates and 5 Judicial Officers as MP High Court Judges, appointment of 3 Judicial Officers as Delhi High Court Judges, and proposal to appoint three Judicial Officers as Allahabad High Court Judges.

    Last week, the Collegium made 34 recommendations for various High Courts, after interviewing 54 candidates over two days.

    This eventful period underscores that the judiciary is never truly on leave, and justice can never be on vacation.

    Courts Are Closed But Is Justice On Leave? Revisiting The Debate On Judicial Vacations
    Next Story