One or two benches of Supreme Court may sit on Dec. 22 to hear urgent cases: CJI Surya Kant

The announcement by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant regarding Supreme Court benches sitting on December 22 to hear urgent cases, even during a holiday period, offers a crucial insight into the administrative functioning of India's apex judiciary and its commitment to ensuring access to justice. This seemingly minor administrative decision carries significant implications for understanding the judicial system, its challenges, and the role of the CJI.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

India's Supreme Court, like many judicial bodies globally, observes designated vacation periods, typically for summer and winter. While these vacations are essential for judges to rest, research, and prepare, they often lead to concerns about the delay in hearing urgent matters. The Indian judiciary is grappling with a formidable backlog of cases, often referred to as 'case pendency,' which is a persistent challenge. In this context, the CJI's directive to constitute one or two benches to sit on December 22, a day falling within the winter vacation period, is a proactive step. The specific instruction for junior lawyers to present their urgent matters on this date highlights a structured approach to managing critical cases during non-working days. This measure is designed to prevent a complete halt in judicial proceedings for matters that cannot wait until the court reopens after the vacation.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

At the forefront is the **Chief Justice of India (CJI)**, who serves as the administrative head of the Supreme Court and is famously known as the 'Master of the Roster.' This power allows the CJI to allocate cases, constitute benches, and determine the court's sitting schedule. This decision exemplifies the CJI's administrative authority in ensuring the smooth functioning of the judiciary. Other key stakeholders include the **Supreme Court Judges** who will preside over these benches, sacrificing their holiday to address pressing legal issues. **Lawyers**, particularly the junior advocates who often handle initial listings and urgent mentions, are critical as they are directly tasked with presenting these cases. Ultimately, the **litigants**—the individuals or entities seeking justice—are the primary beneficiaries, as their urgent matters will not be unduly delayed. The **Supreme Court Registry** also plays a vital role in processing and listing these cases.

**Why This Matters for India:**

This decision is highly significant for India for several reasons. Firstly, it underscores the judiciary's commitment to **access to justice**, a fundamental principle enshrined implicitly under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) which has been interpreted to include the right to speedy justice. By ensuring that urgent cases are heard, the court mitigates potential harm or injustice that could arise from delays. Secondly, it touches upon the broader issue of **judicial efficiency and case pendency**. While a single day's sitting might seem minor, it reflects an administrative effort to maintain momentum and address the backlog, even during holidays. Thirdly, it reinforces the **rule of law** by ensuring that critical legal disputes, especially those involving fundamental rights or urgent public interest, receive timely attention. Politically and socially, it sends a message that the judiciary remains vigilant and responsive to the needs of the populace, even during traditional breaks. Economically, prolonged judicial delays can hinder business and investment, so any measure to expedite justice is beneficial.

**Historical Context and Future Implications:**

The concept of court vacations has a long history, inherited from the British judicial system. Over the years, there has been a recurring debate about reducing these vacations to tackle the massive backlog of cases. Various committees and legal experts have suggested reforms, including increasing working days and reducing holidays. This move by CJI Surya Kant aligns with the spirit of these reform discussions, demonstrating a practical step towards greater judicial availability. In the future, such initiatives could potentially pave the way for more structured mechanisms to handle urgent cases during vacation periods, perhaps leading to a permanent 'vacation bench' system or a review of the overall court calendar. It might also encourage further discussions on judicial reforms aimed at enhancing efficiency and reducing pendency, such as leveraging technology for virtual hearings or optimizing bench strength and case allocation. This administrative step could serve as a precedent, influencing future CJIs to adopt similar proactive measures to ensure judicial continuity.

**Related Constitutional Articles, Acts, or Policies:**

This situation is deeply rooted in several constitutional provisions and judicial practices. **Article 124** of the Constitution deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court, providing the framework for its existence. **Article 145** empowers the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court, including rules for the sitting of benches. The concept of the 'Master of the Roster' is an inherent power of the CJI, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it is derived from the administrative necessity of organizing the court's work. The fundamental right to speedy justice, while not explicitly mentioned, is a well-established facet of **Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)**, as affirmed in various Supreme Court judgments. Furthermore, **Article 32**, which guarantees the right to constitutional remedies, often necessitates urgent hearings, especially when fundamental rights are violated. The **Supreme Court Rules, 2013**, also provide procedures for urgent listings and mentioning of cases, formalizing the administrative processes involved.