The Supreme Court has scheduled a three-month summer break for 2026 under the newly introduced Supreme Court Rules 2025, replacing the earlier 1980 regulations. The vacation will span from June 15 to September 14, 2026, as laid out in Rule 4 of Order II.
The decision was taken during a full court session chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, attended by 19 out of 24 judges. The bench agreed that the new rules, termed a “living document,” can be amended as circumstances demand.
Leave for judges has, however, become a divisive issue. At the opening of the new judicial year, the CJP clarified that while judges can avail holidays during vacations, regular leave during the working term remains at his discretion, guided by set criteria.
According to the court’s circular, offices will stay open during the break except on public holidays. Urgent criminal matters, as well as cases under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution, will continue before available benches as directed by a three-judge committee.
The General Standing Order (GSO) of July 29, issued under the Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order 1997, further empowers the CJP to approve leave requests. Judges must apply in advance with valid reasons, and those traveling abroad need a no-objection certificate. Private foreign trips are limited to summer or winter breaks, with exceptions only for pilgrimages, medical needs, official duties, or family events.
In a letter to the CJP dated Sept 4, senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah strongly objected to the GSO’s wording, particularly the description of judges being at the “whole-time disposal of the state,” which he argued contradicts constitutional independence.
Read More: KP Imposes Ban on Teachers’ Transfers
Justice Shah also criticized restrictions on foreign visits, pointing out that judges had been denied opportunities to represent Pakistan at global institutions like Yale, Harvard, and the New York City Bar Association. He stressed that such engagements enhance the court’s reputation and enrich legal thought.
