VACATION
OF SC AND HC JUDGES - POLITY
News:
Do SC, HCs judges
vacation too much?
What
is in the news?
● Recently,
the 133rd report on judicial processes and reforms was released by the
parliamentary panel chaired by Sushil Kumar Modi.
Vacation
in Judiciary Judicial Work Days:
1. The Supreme
Court has 193 working days annually, High Courts function around 210 days, and
trial courts operate for 245 days.
2. High Courts possess the authority to structure
their calendars as per service rules.
3. Long-standing
Practice: The practice of vacations, particularly the extensive 7-week
(formerly 10-week) summer recess, has its origins in colonial times.
Vacation
Benches:
1.
Composition and Role:
● The
CJI appoints a Vacation Bench, a
specialized court that operates during the Supreme Court’s summer and winter
breaks.
● Although
the court is not fully closed during vacations, this bench handles cases deemed
“urgent matters.”
2. Urgent
Cases:
● While
there is no explicit definition for “urgent
matters,” the Vacation Bench typically entertains writs associated with
habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto, all related to
enforcing fundamental rights.
3. Rule 6 of
Order II of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013:
● Under
this rule, the CJI nominates Division Benches for urgent miscellaneous and
regular hearing matters during the summer vacation period.
● The
rule allows for the appointment of judges to hear urgent cases individually or
in a Division Court.
Notable
cases:
1.
Impactful Decisions: Vacation Benches have delivered significant judgments in
the past.
● Indira Gandhi case: A
well-known instance is when a Vacation Bench Judge refused PM Indira Gandhi’s
plea to stay in Allahabad High Court
decision in 1975, which led to the Emergency declaration.
● Triple Talaq Case:
In 2017, a Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court heard the triple talaq case
during vacation days.
Arguments
in Favour of Vacation Benches:
1. Judicial
Rejuvenation:
● Advocates
emphasize the need for vacation periods to provide judges with mental and physical
rejuvenation.
2. Extended
Work Hours:
● Considering
the demanding nature of judicial work, proponents assert that the long working
hours necessitate periodic breaks.
3. Writing
Judgments:
● Judges
use vacation time to draft judgments, contributing to the timely disposal of
cases.
Arguments Against:
1. Pendency and
Delays:
● Critics
argue that the extended and frequent vacations exacerbate the backlog of cases
and contribute to the slow pace of justice delivery.
2. Inconvenience
to Litigants:
● For
litigants, vacations translate to additional delays in case hearings
Calls
for Reform:
1.
Malimath Committee (2000):
● The
committee proposed reducing vacation
periods by 21 days, advocating for the Supreme Court to operate for 206 days
and High Courts for 231 days annually.
2. Supreme
Court’s 2014 Rule Change:
● The
Supreme Court truncated the summer
vacation period from 10 weeks to seven weeks.
3. Law
Commission of India (2009):
● The
commission recommended curtailing
vacations by 10-15 days and extending court working hours to address the
substantial backlog of cases.
4. RM Lodha
Commission (2014):
● It
suggested that individual judges should take leave at different times
throughout the year instead of having all judges on vacation at once.
Proposed
Approach and Suggested Changes:
1.
Continuous Operation:
● The
133rd committee supports the notion that individual judges should take their
leave at different intervals, thereby ensuring that the courts remain open
throughout the year.
2. Redefined
Judicial Vacations:
● The
parliamentary report calls for a re-evaluation of the traditional concept of
vacations, advocating for a more modern and efficient approach to court
operation.
3. Comparison
with Other Countries:
● The
report suggests that the vacation practices of the Supreme Court and High
Courts should be reviewed in comparison to other countries’ higher courts and
constitutional institutions
CONCLUSION:
● The
debate surrounding the abolition of judicial vacations in India emphasizes the necessity
for a dynamic and effective approach to court operations.
● While
the tradition has historical significance, the current judicial landscape calls
for a re-evaluation of practices to ensure efficient functioning, address the
backlog of cases, and minimize inconveniences to litigants