The Supreme Court has recommended that high courts adopt a uniform approach to listing cases during court vacations, cautioning that litigants should not be prejudiced by an inadvertent act of the court -- an order that came after it examined a video recording of a disputed bail hearing that took place during the Karnataka High Court’s winter break last year.
In an unusual exercise, a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu went through a pen drive containing the video recording and transcript of the December 26, 2025 hearing to examine conflicting claims over whether a government counsel had been given an adequate opportunity to oppose bail. The bench’s scrutiny of the material eventually led it to flag a broader procedural issue concerning the urgent listing of matters when high courts are on vacation.
In its October 16 order, the court said that when a high court directs a matter to be listed “two weeks hence”, and the day following the expiry of that period falls during a court vacation, the registry should ordinarily calculate the two-week period by excluding the vacation. This would help ensure that matters are not listed during a vacation merely because a deadline happens to expire while the court is in recess.
The court, however, clarified that this approach would not apply where the bench specifically directs a matter to be listed on a date falling during the vacation or orders its listing before the vacation bench. The arrangement would also remain subject to the relevant rules framed by individual high courts.
“These observations, aimed at serving the interest of justice better, are essential to secure uniformity as well as to ensure that litigants are not prejudiced due to an inadvertent act of the court,” the bench said.
The recommendation is significant because vacation benches are intended to address urgent matters that cannot wait until regular court sittings resume. Where listing directions intersect with court holidays, the calculation of deadlines can determine whether a case is heard during the break or after reopening, potentially affecting both parties seeking urgent relief and those entitled to oppose it.
The recommendation arose from an appeal by a senior intelligence officer of the Directorate General of Service Tax Intelligence against a Karnataka high court order granting bail to Mohammed Kamran, accused of causing a loss of more than ₹43 crore to the exchequer through alleged fraudulent input tax credit claims and invoices issued without the supply of goods.
The department alleged that its arguing counsel was unavailable when Kamran’s bail petition was heard during the winter vacation, that a request for adjournment was rejected and that it was denied a proper opportunity to present its case. Kamran’s counsel disputed this account, maintaining that a lawyer representing the department had appeared and addressed the court on the merits.
To resolve the conflicting versions, the Supreme Court, by an order dated September 10, permitted the department to file an additional affidavit and allowed Kamran to respond. With his reply, Kamran submitted the pen drive containing the recording and transcript of the hearing.
The examination of the video-recording revealed that the department was not entirely unrepresented, as the lawyer who appeared did make some submissions on the merits. However, he had also sought an adjournment because the department’s standing counsel had been engaged to appear in the matter. When the request was declined, the lawyer chose to assist the court by opposing bail.What weighed more heavily against Kamran was the manner in which he secured an expedited hearing while pursuing parallel legal remedies. After filing a bail petition in the high court on December 9, 2025, he moved the sessions court for bail the following day. On December 22, he also filed a writ petition challenging the legality of his arrest and seeking, among other reliefs, release from custody. The writ court refused interim relief that day. Later the same day, a memo was moved seeking urgent listing of the pending bail petition, which was heard on December 26 during the winter vacation.
The bench noted that Kamran did not disclose to the single judge that the writ court had refused his request for interim release. Nor were the parallel proceedings and the rejection of bail by the sessions court adequately brought to the judge’s attention.
The court described this conduct as forum shopping and an abuse of the process of law, stressing that pursuing remedies before different judicial fora without adequate disclosure could undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The court also questioned the vacation listing, observing that the earlier direction had not specified a date falling during the winter break, nor had the single judge directed that the matter be placed before the vacation bench. The petition should ideally have been listed after the high court reopened, it said.
“To have obtained listing of a petition, without adequate notice to the appellant, was clearly an attempt to steal a march by even misleading the Court,” it observed.
The Supreme Court stopped short of cancelling Kamran’s bail outright. Instead, it set aside the portion of the high court order disposing of his criminal petition and revived the matter for fresh consideration by the single judge. Kamran will continue on interim bail on the existing terms until further orders. The department was given two weeks to file its counter-affidavit and Kamran one week thereafter to file a rejoinder. The high court was asked to decide the petition, preferably by the end of 2026.