Author – Vanshika Verma College – University School of Law and Legal Studies , GGSIPU
To the Point
The Supreme Court of India, as the apex judicial authority, plays a critical role in interpreting the Constitution, protecting fundamental rights, and resolving disputes of national importance. Despite its significance, the Court has often been criticised for its limited number of annual working days of approximately 190 to 200 days, raising concerns over delayed justice, mounting case backlogs, accessibility for litigants across the country. This practice, rooted in colonial legacy and supported by conventions, including long summer vacations, winter breaks, and various festival holidays. While the judiciary argues that these breaks are essential for judgment writing, administrative tasks, and mental rejuvenation, critics point to the alarming pendency of cases and growing public dissatisfaction with the slow pace of justice. The debate intensifies in light of India’s increasing litigation rates and demands for judicial reform. This introduction aims to set the stage for a comprehensive examination of the legal framework governing the Supreme Court’s calendar, the practical and constitutional justifications for partial working days, the impact on the justice delivery system, and the comparative practices of other jurisdictions.
Abstract
The Supreme Court of India, entrusted with the role of upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice, functions for approximately 190 to 200 days annually. This limited number of working days has sparked widespread debate about judicial efficiency, access to justice, and institutional accountability. Rooted in colonial-era traditions, the current court calendar includes long summer and winter vacations, along with several festivals and public holidays. This article critically examines the implications of these partial working days on the functioning of the Apex court. It explores the constitutional and procedural framework that permits such scheduling, analyzes its impact on case pendency, and evaluates the justifications provided by the judiciary. This discussion highlights the urgent need to reassess the balance between judicial rest and public service. It also suggests practical reforms, such as restructuring court vacations, increasing judicial strength, and enhancing the use of technology to ensure a more responsive and accessible justice system.
Keywords: Supreme Court of India, partial working days, case pendency, judicial reforms, constitutional framework, vacation bench, access to justice.
Use of legal jargon
The ever-increasing pendency of cases before the Supreme Court has become a matter of serious concern, raising questions about the efficiency and accessibility of the apex court’s functioning. Although the Supreme Court remains closed during extended breaks, vacation benches are constituted to hear writ petitions and other urgent relief matters, thereby ensuring that essential justice functions continue. The judicial calendar, formulated under the authority granted by Article 145 of the Constitution, allows the Supreme Court to regulate its sittings, which currently account for approximately 190-200 working days annually. While the Court enjoys autonomy in scheduling its sessions, critics argue that an expansive vacation period weakens the court’s ability to fulfill its constitutional mandate of providing timely and effective justice. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is often exercised during recess through vacation benches when matters of habeas corpus or fundamental rights violations require immediate attention. The current structure of partial working days may conflict with the Doctrine of Access to justice, a fundamental tenet of constitutional democracy that ensures legal remedies are available without undue delay. Legal commentators emphasize that limited sittings directly impact judicial productivity, contributing to lowercase disposal rates and increased litigation backlog. The court also often adjourns sine die before embarking on its summer vacation, leading to delays in the hearing of important constitutional and civil matters. The 230th Law Commission Report explicitly recommended a restructuring of vacation periods to ensure a more consistent sitting and timely judicial review of government actions. Further litigants awaiting intra-court appeals, such as review petitions and curative petitions, often face long waiting periods due to the Court’s reduced calendar, affecting the principle of judicial discipline.
Case Laws
The issue of partial working days of the Supreme Court has drawn judicial and academic attention over the years, with multiple cases and reports offering both justification and criticism. As per data from the Supreme Court’s official judicial calendar, the Court functions for approximately 190 to 200 days annually, excluding weekends, national holidays, and vacation periods such as the seven-week summer vacation and two-week winter breaks. While this schedule is within the scope of the Court’s powers under Article 145 of the Constitution, which allows it to frame its own rules and procedures, concerns arise due to the pendency of over 80,000 cases as recorded in 2025, which has prompted calls for judicial reform and calendar revision. In Ashok Pandey v. Union of India (2006), a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Supreme Court to align its working days with the growing needs of litigants. The petitioner argued that the limited functioning of the court amounted to a violation of the doctrine of access to justice. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the Public Interest Litigation, holding that judges perform significant non-courtroom duties such as judgement writing, case review, and administrative work during these vacancies, and that restrictions are essential to maintaining judicial quality and independence. Thus judgement, while upholding the constitutional and functional justification, also opened the door for further discourse on balancing rest and responsibility in the judiciary.
Also, in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002), although the focus was on lower judiciary reforms, the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of adequate judicial manpower and infrastructural support for timely disposal of cases. This precedent indirectly supports the argument that increasing the number of judges, rather than simply increasing working days, could be a viable solution to pendency issues.
Conclusion
The issue of partial working days in the Supreme Court of India brings to light a delicate balance between judicial efficiency and the well-being of the judiciary. The rationale for long vacations, such as the need for rest, research, and judgment writing, is valid but it must now be revisited in the light of the evolving demands of a dynamic legal system and the rising burden of litigation. To address these challenges, systematic reforms must be implemented without compromising the independence or dignity of the judiciary. Firstly, the Supreme Court can consider rationalizing its vacation schedule by reducing the length of summer and winter breaks and instead spreading shorter breaks throughout the year, similar to the term system followed in the United Kingdom. Secondly, the institutionalization of robust vacation benches can ensure that urgent issues are addressed during recesses. Thirdly, increasing the sanctioned strength of judges and ensuring timely appointments would help distribute the workload more efficiently and improve the overall case disposal rates. Additionally, greater reliance on technology, including virtual hearings and AI-assisted case management, could further ease procedural delays and enhance access to justice. In conclusion, while preserving judicial independence and quality of deliberation is essential, it must not come at the cost of public access to timely justice. A calibrated restructuring of the Supreme Court’s working calendar, backed by administrative and technological reforms, is necessary to restore public confidence in the judiciary and uphold the constitutional promise of speedy justice for all.
Faqs
Ques 1. How many days does the Supreme Court of India work in a year?
Ans 1. The Supreme Court generally works for around 190 to 200 days annually, excluding weekends, public holidays, and vacations like summer and winter breaks.
Ques 2. What are the main reasons behind the limited working days of the Supreme Court?
Ans 2. The limited working days are attributed to a colonial-era calendar, the need for rest, judgement writing, and administrative work, and the beliefs that long sittings require mental and physical recuperation for judges.
Ques 3. Is there any law that prescribes the number of working days for the Supreme Court?
Ans 3. No specific law mandates a fixed number of working days. However, Article 145 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to frame its own rules regarding its procedure and sittings.
Ques 4. What reforms have been suggested to address the issue of limited working days?
Ans 4. Suggested reforms include reducing vacation periods, restructuring the judicial calendar, increasing the number of judges, expanding vacation benches, and adopting technology for virtual hearings.
