The move is aimed at curbing the practice of seeking urgent hearings through informal oral requests, a common method employed by lawyers to expedite cases without proper notice. According to court officials, the new measure is designed to streamline judicial processes, ensuring that cases are listed only through formal channels. The decision follows growing concerns about the increasing volume of cases being brought before the court in an ad-hoc manner, often bypassing the established listing procedure.
This ruling comes at a time when the backlog of cases in India's judiciary remains a significant challenge. While efforts to address this backlog have been ongoing, many argue that the new restriction could exacerbate delays in urgent matters, particularly for those seeking emergency relief. Legal experts point out that the ability to request immediate hearings has been a critical tool for lawyers handling sensitive cases, such as those involving human rights, public interest, and urgent legal remedies.
Justice Khanna, who took office as the Chief Justice earlier this year, has been vocal about improving judicial efficiency and transparency. His tenure has already seen significant changes in the way the Supreme Court functions, with an emphasis on reducing delays and enhancing the accessibility of legal proceedings for the public. The latest decision underscores his commitment to formalizing judicial procedures, although it also raises questions about how this will affect litigants in urgent need of judicial intervention.
Under the new system, lawyers will be required to submit a formal application for urgent hearing, accompanied by a clear explanation of the urgency of the matter at hand. This shift will also require the establishment of a more structured process to ensure that such applications are reviewed promptly by the designated bench. Court staff will now play a more active role in assessing the merit of such applications before they are scheduled for hearing.
While many have praised the move as a step toward improving the overall efficiency of the judicial system, some have raised concerns about its practical implications. Lawyers argue that oral mentioning has been an important tool in emergency cases, such as bail petitions, stay orders, and issues involving vulnerable individuals. The restriction could potentially delay access to justice for those in immediate need of relief.
Critics of the decision emphasize that the informal oral mention system has historically allowed courts to respond more swiftly to matters requiring urgent attention, including those where waiting for a formal petition might compromise the interests of the parties involved. Human rights lawyers, in particular, express concerns that this change may adversely affect their ability to secure timely hearings for clients who face imminent harm.
On the other hand, proponents of the decision argue that the practice of oral mentioning had led to inconsistent outcomes, with some cases receiving expedited hearings while others were delayed. By requiring formal written requests, they argue, the new rule will bring greater clarity and fairness to the process. Supporters also contend that this approach will help eliminate the perceived arbitrariness in the allocation of urgent hearings, ensuring that cases are heard in an orderly and structured manner.
The move is also seen as part of broader efforts to modernize the judiciary and improve its functioning. The Indian judiciary has long struggled with a vast backlog of cases, with millions of cases pending in lower courts and the higher judiciary alike. While the Supreme Court has been proactive in introducing digital reforms, such as e-filing and virtual hearings, this latest initiative reflects a more traditional approach to addressing the concerns of judicial efficiency.
The decision has already led to mixed reactions from the legal community. Some lawyers argue that it represents a step backward, especially at a time when the judiciary is under increasing pressure to clear backlogs and reduce delays. However, others believe it could lead to a more streamlined, organized system, where cases are scheduled and heard according to their urgency, rather than the informal process that has sometimes resulted in unpredictable outcomes.
The Court’s decision to restrict oral mentioning may also prompt changes in the way lawyers prepare for hearings. The new directive will likely lead to more careful preparation of cases, as lawyers will now need to submit detailed written applications explaining the urgency of their matters. This is expected to encourage more rigorous standards in determining which cases qualify for expedited hearings.