Statement: The High Court of state X has decided to abolish summer vacations to clear pending cases.\nAssumptions:\nI. Court vacations are a legacy of the colonial (Raj) period.\nII. This step will compel the Government to fill all judicial vacancies.

Introduction / Context:
The court chooses to work through the usual vacation period to accelerate case disposal. We must identify necessary assumptions behind this operational decision, not broader historical or political claims.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Action: abolishing summer vacation to reduce backlog.
• No statement about the origin of vacations.
• No statement promising executive (Government) action on vacancies.

Concept / Approach:
For the decision to make sense, the court only needs to assume that additional sitting days aid backlog reduction. Claims about colonial vestiges (I) or compelling Government to fill vacancies (II) are not required to justify the schedule change.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) If I is false (vacations are not colonial), the decision can still be justified by throughput gains.2) If II is false (Government does not fill vacancies), the court may still gain extra disposal capacity by sitting more days.3) Hence, neither I nor II is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Operational levers (more hearing days, longer benches, case triage) improve disposal independent of executive hiring cycles.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options asserting I or II as necessary add extraneous motives not inherent in the action.

Common Pitfalls:
Attributing symbolic or political motives when a simpler operational rationale suffices.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit.