“We Don’t Understand The Appearance Of Senior Counsel In Vacations”
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 16th June, The Supreme Court once again questioned why top lawyers appear during court vacations, saying, “We don’t understand the appearance of senior counsel in vacations.” The bench expressed concern over disregarding regular court procedures during breaks.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its disapproval of senior advocates appearing during court vacations, emphasizing that this practice has already been criticized by the Court.
A vacation Bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale made this remark after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham, who is seeking interim bail in a money laundering case.
Referring to Rohatgi’s involvement in the case, the Court stated during the hearing,
“We don’t understand the appearance of senior counsel in vacations. This Court has often commented on that,”
This is not the first instance where the Supreme Court has urged senior lawyers to avoid appearing before the Court during vacation periods.
In June 2023, a Bench led by Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized that instructing counsel or advocates-on-record (AoRs) should be allowed to present and mention matters during the Court’s summer break.
Similarly, in May of the previous year, a Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Karol made a related observation, stating that senior advocates should allow younger members of the Bar the opportunity to argue cases during court vacations.
Also Read: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising Opposes Interviews for Senior Designation in Supreme Court
Justice Karol remarked at the time,
“We want the younger bar to grow, that is all; vacation was meant (to be an opportunity) only for the younger people,”
This sentiment was reiterated last month when a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma stated that senior lawyers should refrain from arguing cases during the summer recess.
During today’s proceedings, the Court questioned why Senior Advocate Rohatgi had chosen to argue a case during the vacation period. Nonetheless, it allowed him to make brief submissions.
Rohatgi argued that the petitioner had been in custody for 11 months and that his regular bail application had been pending before the Delhi High Court since February 2025, urging the Court to grant interim bail for his client.
In response, the Court noted that a similar plea had previously been dismissed by a three-judge Bench.
Justice Mehta stated,
“All those arguments we aren’t at all impressed by the tactics of the petitioner. Your SLP was dismissed by a three-judge bench of this Court. Now you are trying to get in during this vacation and trying to get the same relief in a matter which has already been dismissed,”
As the Court began to dictate its order, Rohatgi requested permission to withdraw the petition.
The Court granted the request, and the plea was subsequently withdrawn.
Case Title: Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement
