SC points out vacation listing loophole, urges uniform rules for HCs

The Supreme Court recommended that high courts use a consistent method when a listing deadline overlaps with court holidays. If a judge says a case should be listed “two weeks hence” and the relevant period ends around a vacation, the registry should ordinarily exclude the vacation while calculating the date. The goal is to avoid accidental vacation hearings and protect litigants from procedural confusion.

For example, a case may be ordered for listing two weeks later. If the resulting date falls during the high court’s winter break, the registry should generally count the two weeks around the vacation and list the matter after reopening. This approach does not apply when the judge expressly sets a vacation date or directs the matter before a vacation bench.

The recommendation is not an automatic rule overriding every high court’s procedures. Individual high court rules still apply. The Supreme Court said a uniform approach would better serve justice and prevent litigants from being prejudiced by an inadvertent court action.

A vacation bench is a bench that hears selected matters during a court’s holiday period. Regular court sittings are paused, but some disputes may require immediate attention. Vacation benches provide a route for urgent cases instead of making every litigant wait until the court resumes normal work.

The article connects vacation benches to bail and other time-sensitive requests. Kamran’s bail petition was heard on December 26, 2025, during the Karnataka High Court’s winter vacation. The dispute showed why the listing process matters: the government said its main arguing counsel was unavailable, while Kamran’s side said a government lawyer appeared and addressed the court.

Vacation benches are therefore designed for urgency, not routine scheduling. The Supreme Court’s recommendation seeks to prevent ordinary listing directions from accidentally sending cases to a vacation bench. A matter should be heard during recess when the judge specifically directs it, when it is genuinely urgent, or when the applicable high court rules provide for that route.

A direction to list a case “two weeks hence” does not always produce the same practical date. If the calculation counts vacation days normally, the deadline may expire during the court’s recess, causing the case to appear before a vacation bench. If the registry excludes the vacation, the listing is generally shifted until after regular sittings resume.

That difference can affect both sides. An urgent applicant may obtain an earlier hearing if the matter is listed during the break. The opposing party may have less time to arrange counsel, especially if the listing was not expected. In the Karnataka matter, the government argued that its main counsel was unavailable when Kamran’s bail case was heard during winter vacation.

The Supreme Court therefore recommended excluding the vacation in the ordinary calculation when the deadline intersects with recess. The exception is important: a judge can expressly choose a vacation date or direct the matter before the vacation bench. High court rules also remain relevant, so the recommendation promotes uniformity without eliminating local procedure.

The Supreme Court examined a video recording and transcript of the December 26, 2025 hearing to settle conflicting accounts. The department said its arguing counsel was unavailable, its request for an adjournment was rejected, and it lacked a proper chance to oppose bail. Kamran’s counsel said a government lawyer had appeared and argued against release.

The recording supported parts of both accounts. It showed that a lawyer representing the department was present and made some submissions on the merits. However, that lawyer also asked for an adjournment because the department’s standing counsel was engaged in the matter. After the request was refused, he chose to assist the court by opposing bail.

The finding did not mean the department was entirely absent. It showed instead that the representation was limited and arose after an adjournment request failed. The Supreme Court’s review also exposed the wider vacation-listing issue, because the disputed hearing occurred during the Karnataka High Court’s winter break.

Forum shopping describes using multiple legal proceedings or forums at the same time to pursue relief, especially when one route has produced an unfavourable result. Courts view this as a problem because parties must present relevant proceedings honestly and should not obtain repeated or expedited consideration by withholding material facts.

The Supreme Court noted that Kamran filed a high court bail petition on December 9, 2025, then approached the sessions court the next day. On December 22, he filed a writ petition challenging his arrest and seeking release. The writ court refused interim relief that day. Later, he sought urgent listing of the pending high court bail petition, which was heard during vacation on December 26.

The bench said he did not tell the single judge about the writ court’s refusal of interim release. It also found that the parallel proceedings and sessions-court bail rejection were not adequately brought to the judge’s attention. The court described this conduct as forum shopping and an abuse of legal process.

The alleged loss to the exchequer was more than ₹43 crore. The figure relates to the department’s allegation that Mohammed Kamran caused a major revenue loss through fraudulent input tax credit claims and invoices that did not correspond to actual supplies of goods.

Input tax credit claims were central to the accusation described in the article. The department alleged that invoices were issued without goods being supplied, yet those documents were used in claims for tax credit. The article does not give a more precise amount than “more than ₹43 crore,” so the scale should be reported using that wording rather than as an exact total.

The allegation formed the background to Kamran’s bail litigation. The Karnataka High Court granted him bail during its winter vacation, prompting an appeal by a senior intelligence officer of the Directorate General of Service Tax Intelligence. The Supreme Court examined the hearing process and separately addressed how vacation listings should be calculated.

Bail is the release of an accused person from custody while the legal case continues, subject to the court’s decision and any conditions it imposes. It is not the same as a final finding that the person is innocent. A bail court considers the request before deciding whether continued custody is necessary.

A fair opportunity for the prosecution matters because it may have information relevant to that decision. The prosecution can explain the allegations, the claimed financial loss, the evidence, or reasons why release should be delayed or subject to conditions. In Kamran’s case, the department said it was denied a proper opportunity to oppose bail because its standing counsel was unavailable and an adjournment request was rejected.

The video showed that another government lawyer did appear and made some submissions, so the department was not entirely absent. Still, the dispute highlighted why urgent vacation hearings need careful listing and representation. The Supreme Court warned that litigants should not be prejudiced by an inadvertent act of the court.