Eventful 'Partial Working Days' Of Supreme Court

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 ExamIn 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 GavaiCrackdown on Unlawful Detentions: Jail authorities rebuked for ignoring bail orderSending 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 JudgesSafeguarding 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...

Eventful 'Partial Working Days' Of Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

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

Tags