The Supreme Court on Monday said that the majority of cases listed during the court’s summer vacation do not involve any urgency and could have been filed before or after the court's summer break..The remark was made by Justice Surya Kant during a vacation bench hearing of an appeal filed by the Vidarbha Hockey Association seeking directions against Hockey India for denying it associate membership.“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 said..The bench also comprising Justice Dipankar Datta also questioned the basis of comparison drawn by the petitioner with associations from other sports.Justice Datta pointed out that only one state-level body can be recognised for an Olympic sport under Indian Olympic Association regulations and that comparisons with cricket or kabaddi associations were irrelevant.“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,” he said. .When the petitioner argued that Clause 31.1.3 of the Indian Olympic Association Rules only dealt with voting rights, the bench shifted focus to procedural concerns. Justice Kant pointed to the delay in filing the petition, which challenged an order passed in June 2024 but was filed in May 2025.The bench asked the petitioner to explain why the matter was being brought before the court during the vacation, despite the delay.“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?” the bench asked.The petitioner responded that he had not requested listing during the vacation.“I never asked to be listed in vacation,” counsel submitted.To this, Justice Kant replied that most of the vacation bench matters lacked genuine urgency..Turning to the merits, the bench questioned how a constitutional court could issue a writ of mandamus directing Hockey India to confer associate membership status.“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 bench said.The petitioner submitted that associate membership had been granted in 2013 but later withdrawn arbitrarily..The bench, however, was not inclined to interfere, especially given the delay. The counsel for the petitioner raised the issue of differential treatment by pointing out that Delhi had over 20 associate members while Vidarbha was not allowed to send even one.The Court was not persuaded. “Sorry. Thank you.” As the hearing concluded, the petitioner expressed disappointment.“Eighty years of sporting culture has been destroyed,” the counsel remarked. He eventually withdrew the petition. “Then I would like to withdraw,” counsel said.“Alright then. Thank you for this too,” the bench responded..[Read Live Coverage]
