The Supreme Court on Monday expressed disapproval over the appearance of senior advocates during court vacations, noting that the practice has already been frowned upon by it [Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement]..A vacation Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B Varale made the observation after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared on behalf of Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham today. Dham has sought interim bail in connection with a money laundering case.“We don’t understand the appearance of senior counsel in vacations. This Court has often commented on that,” the Court orally remarked during the hearing, referring to Rogatgi's appearance in the matter..This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has urged senior lawyers to refrain from appearing before the top court during its court vacations. In June 2023, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said that instructing counsel or advocates-on-record (AoRs) should be given an opportunity to argue and mention matters when the Court is on its summer break. In May last year, a Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Karol made a similar observation, remarking that senior advocates should give younger members of the Bar the opportunity to argue cases during court vacations. "We want the younger bar to grow, that is all; vacation was meant (to be an opportunity) only for the younger people," Justice Karol had remarked at the time. This was reiterated last month as well, when a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma said that senior lawyers should refrain from arguing cases during the summer recess. .While so, the Court today questioned why Senior Advocate Rohatgi had appeared to argue a case during the court's vacation period. However, it eventually heard brief submissions made by Rohatgi. Rohatgi submitted 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. He, therefore, urged the Court to grant his client interim bail. .The Court, in response, pointed out that a similar plea had already been dismissed by a three-judge Bench earlier.“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,” Justice Mehta remarked.As the Court began dictating its order, Rohatgi sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court allowed the request, and the plea was withdrawn. .[Read Live Coverage]
