The Supreme Court witnessed a candid exchange as judges and senior law officers defended court vacations, highlighting demanding constitutional responsibilities. The Solicitor General stressed, “We are not having 10-5 jobs… judges read 60 files, our office starts after 5 pm.”
The Supreme Court heard a forthright discussion between members of the Bench and senior law officers concerning criticism over court vacations.
Judges and law officers strongly defended the necessity of breaks, citing heavy caseloads and the constitutional duties of the judiciary.
The exchange took place before a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma while it considered petitions challenging the 2023 law that governs appointments to the Election Commission of India.
As the Court weighed when to schedule the matter after the forthcoming court vacations, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the length of judicial vacations had already been shortened. Justice Sharma noted that even on days when the courts operate partially, judges continue to work.
He observed,
“Our vacation is further curtailed by two weeks. I can go out only after 15th. And final hearing cases are being listed,”
To counter criticism, Mehta argued that such objections fail to reflect the volume and intensity of judicial work carried out beyond regular court hours.
The Solicitor General said,
“We are not having 10-5 jobs. The Hon’ble judges read 60 files… our office starts after 5 pm. Why can’t we accept that fact? And really have the vacation,”
Justice Datta highlighted the need for sufficient preparation time for judges of the country’s apex constitutional court, adding, he said,
“Is it really for us to justify why vacations should be there? It’s for the people to understand. Because after all, we are the final court of the land. If we commit an error, even a meritorious case will go the other way,”
He further pointed out that during partial working days he had to prepare approximately 15 judgments.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani also joined the discussion, remarking that public criticism persists whether judges choose to respond or remain silent. Mehta added that periodic rest is scientifically necessary for effective functioning, comparing it to mandatory weekly rest systems used in some countries.
Addressing social media criticism, Mehta said online platforms have produced experts on every issue, he said,
“I always say you need three things for being active on social media: a smartphone, lots of time at your disposal, and free data. If you have these three you are an expert on everything,”
During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan sought that the Election Commission appointment case be listed immediately after the Court reopens. Justice Datta, however, humorously said the Court would need time to regain its regular pace after the break.
He remarked,
“First two weeks, it requires some time for the engine to warm up, after six weeks of holidays,”
The matter has now been scheduled for hearing on July 30.
Earlier, on May 7, the Court had identified significant procedural shortcomings in a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The Court observed that even crucial constitutional issues must still satisfy procedural requirements.
Earlier, On May 6, stressing the importance of the case, the Bench had noted,
“This matter is more important than any other matter,”
Also directed that no other matters be taken up during the day. It asked the petitioners to begin their arguments, while permitting the Solicitor General to present submissions at a later stage, and directed that arguments on behalf of the petitioners be concluded by the next day.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the petitioners, argued that Section 7 of the 2023 Act gives priority to the executive in appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, contrary to the principles laid down in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.
He contended that under the current framework, the selection process is effectively controlled by the Prime Minister and a Union Minister nominated by him, which, according to him, compromises the Election Commission’s independence.
Warning that excessive executive influence could ultimately weaken public confidence in electoral processes, Hansaria submitted,
“If the Prime Minister suggests a name, there is no real scope for any alternative,”