“The Final Court Cannot Function On Fatigue”: Supreme Court Bench Pushes Back Against Vacation Backlash
Supreme Court judges and senior law officers defended judicial vacations, stressing that constitutional adjudication required intense preparation, long working hours and adequate mental rest
Supreme Court judges and top law officers defended court vacations during a hearing on petitions challenging the Election Commission appointments law
The Supreme Court on Wednesday witnessed a candid exchange between judges and senior law officers over criticism surrounding court vacations, with members of the Bench and the Bar strongly defending the need for judicial breaks amid heavy workloads and constitutional responsibilities.
The discussion unfolded before a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma while hearing petitions challenging the 2023 law governing appointments to the Election Commission of India.
As the Court considered scheduling the matter after the upcoming court vacations, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that the duration of judicial vacations had already been reduced.
Justice Sharma observed that judges continue working even during partial court working days. “Our vacation is further curtailed by two weeks. I can go out only after 15th. And final hearing cases are being listed,” he remarked.
Defending the judiciary’s workload, Mehta said criticism over court vacations ignored the volume and intensity of judicial work performed beyond court hours.
“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,” the Solicitor General said.
Justice Datta responded by stressing the importance of adequate preparation time for judges of the country’s apex constitutional court. “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,” Justice Datta observed.
He added that he himself had to prepare around 15 judgments during the partial working days.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani also joined the discussion, remarking that public criticism continues whether judges speak on the issue or remain silent.
The Solicitor General further argued that periodic rest was scientifically essential for effective functioning and compared it to mandatory weekly rest systems adopted in some countries.
Referring to criticism on social media, Mehta remarked that online platforms had created “experts” on every issue. “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,” he said.
During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan requested that the Election Commission appointments matter be listed immediately after reopening of the Court.
Justice Datta, however, remarked humorously that the Court would need some time to return to regular rhythm after the break. “First two weeks, it requires some time for the engine to warm up, after six weeks of holidays,” he said in jest.
The matter has now been posted for hearing on July 30.
Previously, on May 7, the Court had flagged serious procedural defects in a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, observing that even important constitutional matters must comply with procedural requirements.
Notably, on May 6, emphasising the importance of the case, the Bench had observed, “This matter is more important than any other matter,” and directed that no other cases would be taken up during the day. The Court had asked the petitioners to commence arguments, permitting the Solicitor General to make his submissions at a later stage. It also directed that arguments on behalf of the petitioners be concluded by the following day.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the petitioners had argued that Section 7 of the 2023 Act grants primacy to the executive in the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, contrary to the principles laid down in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.
He had contended that under the present framework, the selection process is effectively controlled by the Prime Minister and a Union Minister nominated by him, thereby undermining the independence of the Election Commission. “If the Prime Minister suggests a name, there is no real scope for any alternative,” Hansaria had submitted, warning that excessive executive control could erode public confidence in electoral processes.
Case Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & connected matters
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma
Hearing Date: May 27, 2026