70 Percent Don’t Deserve Holiday Hearings!
The Supreme Court criticized the surge of non-urgent cases during its summer vacation. Justice Surya Kant said 70 percent of such matters lack real urgency.
New Delhi: Today, On May 26, The Supreme Court of India on Monday raised serious concerns over the number of cases being filed and heard during the court’s summer vacation.
READ ALSO: Lawyers Oppose ‘Communication’ Requesting Judges to Delay Final Orders During Vacations
Justice Surya Kant, who was presiding over a vacation bench along with Justice Dipankar Datta, said that most of the matters listed during this time were not urgent and could have easily been filed before or after the vacation period.
“Seventy percent of the matters listed today in vacation benches are those which should have been listed before or after vacation. There is no urgency in these matters. We have sat the whole night yesterday reading these,”
Justice Surya Kant observed during the hearing of a petition filed by the Vidarbha Hockey Association.
The Vidarbha Hockey Association had approached the Supreme Court with a plea for directions against Hockey India.
They alleged that Hockey India had unfairly denied them associate membership. The matter came up during the summer vacation hearing, which prompted the bench to question the timing and urgency of the petition.
The bench also took a close look at the legal reasoning behind the petition. Justice Dipankar Datta specifically pointed out that comparing hockey with other sports like cricket or kabaddi was not appropriate.
He explained that there are strict rules under the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) regulations which apply differently to Olympic sports such as hockey.
Justice Datta clarified,
“So you’re referring to cricket association and kabaddi association. They are not Olympic sports. So whatever is happening in cricket association, kabaddi association, kho kho association is not relevant for our purpose. Hockey is an Olympic sport. Under the Indian Olympic Association regulations, there can be only one association from one state. So this particular order even deregisters the Mumbai association. There will be only one from Maharashtra,”
During the hearing, the petitioner argued that Clause 31.1.3 of the Indian Olympic Association Rules only concerned voting rights.
However, the bench quickly shifted its focus to another serious issue—delay in filing the petition. The Vidarbha Hockey Association was challenging an order passed in June 2024, but the petition was only filed in May 2025, nearly a year later.
Justice Surya Kant questioned this delay sharply:
“Why have you come so late? June 2024 order, you’re filing a special leave petition (SLP) in May. And getting it listed in vacation. Please tell us what is the great urgency?”
In response, the counsel for the petitioner stated:
“I never asked to be listed in vacation.”
Justice Kant was not satisfied with this explanation and remarked on the overall trend of filing non-urgent cases during the vacation:
“Most of the vacation bench matters lacked genuine urgency.”
Coming to the main issue, the bench discussed whether the Supreme Court, as a constitutional court, could even issue a writ of mandamus to direct Hockey India or the Indian Olympic Association to give associate membership to Vidarbha Hockey Association.
Justice Kant said,
“Question is that today you’re before a writ court. You want us to direct Hockey Association and Indian Olympic Association that you should be taken as associate member,”
The petitioner argued that associate membership was previously granted to them in 2013, but later withdrawn in an arbitrary manner. He further tried to highlight the inconsistency in how different regions were being treated.
For example, he said that the Delhi Hockey Association had more than 20 associate members, while Vidarbha was not allowed even one.
Despite these arguments, the Court did not find the matter convincing enough to interfere, especially due to the long delay in filing the petition.
“Sorry. Thank you,”
the Court remarked briefly.
As the hearing came to a close, the counsel for the petitioner voiced his disappointment with the outcome of the case:
“Eighty years of sporting culture has been destroyed.”
He then requested to withdraw the petition altogether:
“Then I would like to withdraw.”
To this, the bench simply replied:
“Alright then. Thank you for this too.”
This case highlights the Supreme Court’s serious concern about the growing trend of listing non-urgent matters during court vacations.
ALSO READ: ‘Summer Vacation’ Renamed As ‘Partial Court Working Days’ : Supreme Court
It also reflects how delays in legal filings and improper comparisons between different types of sports associations can significantly weaken a petitioner’s case, no matter how old or established the institution may be.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Chief Justice BR Gavai