Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna's recent directive prohibiting oral mentioning of cases for urgent listing has stirred a range of responses from the legal fraternity.
The new policy, announced on Tuesday, marks a shift from the long-standing practice where lawyers would request urgent hearings by mentioning cases before the CJI-led bench at the start of each day's proceedings.
Former CJI D Y Chandrachud had introduced the system of mentioning urgent cases through emails. But, the system was not implemented fully as he used to hear oral mentioning as well.
This practice of oral mentioning, typically conducted at 10:30 am daily, often takes about half an hour of judicial time and is known to allow well-resourced clients to secure out-of-turn hearings by hiring senior advocates.
Now, urgent listings must be requested solely through email or written applications, with reasons for urgency clearly stated.
Usually top lawyers are hired for mentioning cases to ensure out-of-turn listing and hearing of the cases and they are reportedly paid handsomely for arguing for a few seconds.
"No written or oral mentionings anymore. Only in email or written slip/letters. Just state the reasons for urgency," Justice Khanna said at the start of the judicial proceedings on his second day as the CJI.
Former Supreme Court Bar Association President and senior advocate Vikas Singh, senior lawyers H S Phoolka and Vijay Hansaria were of the view that the practice of oral mentioning of cases should be continued to deal with "extremely urgent cases".
Senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi was of the view that this policy of mentioning of cases through emails or letters was in "continuance of the procedure devised by former CJI (Chandrachud)".
However, senior lawyer Siddharth Luthra and advocate Ashwani Dubey termed the decision of CJI Khanna as "laudable and commendable" intended to save precious judicial time.
"Oral mentioning has been a consistent practice of this court. The Bar Association should impress upon him (the CJI) the importance of mentioning. I am sure he will appreciate it. Many a time a mail cannot convey all that may come in the mind of the CJI while deciding to list or not. Also many times urgent orders are passed during mentioning," Singh told PTI.
Phoolka said the system of mentioning cases through emails was former CJI Chandrachud.
"But oral mentioning of cases was not barred. An exception should be carved out, in extremely urgent matters, oral mentioning should be permitted," he said.
"The email or written letters are no substitute for oral mentioning, because sometimes there may be very grave emergencies which may require immediate intervention. And many times, emails may not be placed before the Hon'ble CJI in time, or he may not have time to look into it. So completely rejecting oral mentioning, according to me, is not correct. An exception should always be there," Hansaria said.
On the other hand, senior advocate Luthra said the idea of permitting mentioning of cases through emails or letters is to save judicial time so that urgent listing can be done on a routine basis.
"It is in line with what was done by the previous CJI," he added.
Dubey echoed the views of Luthra and said, "CJI Sanjiv Khanna's decision is a laudable and commendable step.
"It will help lawyers and judges both. Earlier, oral mentioning by lawyers took a long time. This will go a long way in saving the precious time of the court,” Dubey said.
The apex court registry has established norms for placing fresh cases before assigned benches.
At times, lawyers mention cases first before the concerned apex court registrar for urgent listing of their cases.
If the cases are not listed by the registry as per the submissions of the lawyers then they mention them before the CJI-led bench every morning at 10.30 am.
