Summer Vacation or Judicial Commitment? Supreme Court’s Partial Court Working Days Send a Powerful Message

New Delhi, 13 July: There was a time when the Supreme Court of India faced criticism for taking long summer vacations. Many even accused the judges of being inactive during the summer holidays. However, the summer of 2025 has significantly altered that narrative, presenting a counterpoint to such assumptions.

This year, the Supreme Court officially renamed its summer break as "Partial Court Working Days", a term that wasn't just symbolic. Between May 26 and July 13, at least two benches sat daily to hear urgent matters. On several days, as many as five benches were functional, dealing with critical constitutional and legal issues. During this period, the Court delivered key judgments reinforcing constitutional values, proving that the judiciary's work doesn’t pause even during recess.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud had earlier clarified that judges often use vacation periods to write judgments, reflect on complex constitutional matters, and stay mentally invested in their roles. This year’s functioning during vacation has sent out a strong message: “Justice never sleeps.” Here’s a comprehensive look at some significant matters handled by the Supreme Court during this vacation period:

1. NEET PG 2025 Controversy: A Push for Fairness

The Supreme Court intervened in the ongoing NEET PG controversy and directed the National Board of Examinations (NBE) to conduct the exam in a single shift instead of the previously proposed two-shift format. Students had challenged the two-shift model, citing concerns over potential variations in difficulty levels, leading to an unfair advantage.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Kumar, and N.V. Anjaria ruled that a two-shift exam would create an “uneven playing field.” Consequently, the NBE was allowed to extend the exam date to August 3, 2025, to make necessary arrangements.

2. Personal Liberty: Disregard of Bail Order

In a serious rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh jail authorities, the Supreme Court slammed them for not releasing an undertrial despite a valid bail order. A technical omission—failure to cite a specific sub-section—was used as an excuse to keep the individual incarcerated.

The bench, led by Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N.K. Singh, condemned the act as a mockery of the justice system, issued summons to the jail authorities, and awarded ₹5 lakh interim compensation to the aggrieved person.

3. Autonomy of Legal Profession: Lawyers Under Summons

A critical case emerged concerning whether investigating agencies can summon lawyers merely for offering legal advice to clients. The court took suo motu cognizance of the issue after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons to senior advocates Arvind P. Datar and Pratap Venugopal.

This sparked backlash within the legal fraternity, leading to the ED withdrawing the summons. The Court is now contemplating the scope of lawyer-client privilege and the need for judicial oversight before summoning legal counsel.

4. Electoral Integrity & Voter Roll Revisions in Bihar

In the context of Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, the Election Commission was advised by the Supreme Court to consider the use of Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards for voter verification.

Petitioners argued that such a move could disenfranchise up to 4 crore voters, particularly among marginalized communities like Dalits, Muslims, and migrant laborers. The bench, including Justices S. Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, stated that the list of documents is illustrative, not exhaustive, and asked the EC to provide clearer timelines. The matter will next be heard on July 28, 2025.

5. Victim’s Right to Appeal Under Section 372 CrPC

In a landmark clarification, the Court affirmed that under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a victim has the right to appeal against an acquittal even if they are not the complainant. This ruling expands the definition of a “victim” and extends the right to appeal to more individuals, including those in cheque dishonor cases.

6. Ecological Accountability: Delhi Tree Cutting Incident

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) faced legal consequences for cutting trees in the Ridge area without proper permissions. The Supreme Court deemed the act criminal contempt, imposing a fine of ₹25,000 on the responsible officials. The judgment underlined the Court’s serious stance on ecological and environmental protection.

7. Fake Encounters in Assam: Human Rights in Focus

In a major human rights issue, the Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission to independently probe 171 alleged fake encounter cases. Citing Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court asserted that encounter killings cannot replace due process in a democracy and demanded thorough investigation into any violation of the right to life.

8. Defending Free Speech: Kamal Haasan’s 'Thug Life'

The Supreme Court intervened in the unofficial ban on Kamal Haasan's film “Thug Life” in Karnataka. The Court questioned the basis of such bans and slammed the Karnataka High Court’s suggestion that Haasan should apologize for allegedly hurting sentiments.

The bench asked: “Where are we heading? There is no end to hurting sentiments in India.” It emphasized that once a film is certified by CBFC, its release cannot be stopped due to mob pressure or sentiments. The move reinforced the Rule of Law and freedom of expression.

9. Judicial Appointments and Transfers

During the vacation, three new judges—Justices N.V. Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi, and A.S. Chandurkar—were appointed to the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Collegium issued 34 recommendations for appointments and transfers in various High Courts, covering Chief Justices, judicial officers, and advocate elevations.

10. Delicate Trust Between Judiciary and Legal Profession

From protecting lawyer-client privilege to ensuring bail implementation and electoral transparency, the vacation period saw the Supreme Court functioning with judicial consciousness and responsibility. The CJI aptly remarked that judges don’t get weekend holidays either, and those who criticize judicial vacations often fail to grasp the behind-the-scenes work that continues.

Conclusion: A Summer Break that Wasn’t a Break

As the Supreme Court resumes full functioning from July 14, 2025, under the leadership of CJI B.R. Gavai, the summer break stands out as a powerful statement: Justice doesn’t go on vacation, nor do those who uphold it.

This period proved that the judiciary remains alert, active, and committed—even during recess. Whether it’s individual liberty, environmental protection, electoral integrity, or the autonomy of legal professionals—the judiciary has shown that it is ever vigilant.

So, the next time someone says judges were on holiday, let them know: The Constitution was still being defended every day.

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s active vacation period? Share your views in the comments. And for updates on more crucial Supreme Court developments, keep following Right to Justice.