New Delhi: On June 1, 2026, the first day of its summer vacation sittings, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the mentioning of cases by Senior Advocates across vacation benches, signalling a consistent approach aimed at prioritising advocates-on-record and junior members of the Bar during the partial working days of the vacation period.
The summer vacation is scheduled to run from June 1 to July 12, 2026. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has constituted 23 benches to hear cases during this period.
Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice P.B. Varale
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice P.B. Varale announced at the outset that Senior Advocates would not be permitted to mention matters before their courtroom.
“No Senior Counsel to make mentioning here. The advocates-on-record can do the same. No unlisted mentioning allowed,” said Justice Nath.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave objected, submitting that the Court was not fully closed and that notices issued the previous week required appearances. “There are no holidays. These are partial working days. These are matters in which notice was issued last week. We have to appear,” he submitted.
The Bench remained firm. Justice Nath responded: “Make a request to the CJI. We have 55 items today, which has not happened in the last three years.”
When Advocate Mathews Nedumpara sought to mention a case, Justice Nath remarked: “You are a senior in my eyes. No mentioning.”
As another counsel sought to intervene, Justice Nath reiterated the restriction, adding: “Yeh sab seniors ko bahar nikalo (get all these seniors out).” When counsel submitted that they were unaware of the restriction, Justice Nath replied: “I am master of my court. Go to the canteen and eat something.”
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde referred to an earlier instance involving Senior Advocate Fali Nariman, recalling that Nariman had once allowed his junior to argue when he was not permitted to address the Court before Justice Lahoti in an important matter involving the Karnataka Chief Secretary. Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam urged the Bench not to dismiss matters in the absence of the seniors appearing in them.
Justice Nath assured the Bar that no matters would be dismissed. “Why will we dismiss? We are either giving dates or hearing them. You do not have to mention them either. Judges are very reasonable. Lawyers, at times, become unreasonable,” he said.
Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
A similar approach was adopted by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih during the hearing of a bail matter. Justice Karol underscored that vacation hearings were intended for non-designated lawyers.
“Sorry, speaking for myself and my brother judge, for the last three years, vacation time has only been meant for those who are not designated Seniors,” said Justice Karol.
When a Senior Counsel indicated that a colleague would argue in his place, the Court observed: “We have never dismissed a matter during vacation. We encourage younger members of the Bar to argue.”
