In rare move, SC bench order criticises CJI’s listing system

In a rare instance of open criticism of the Supreme Court’s new case listing method introduced by new CJI U U Lalit, a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has in a very judicial order said that the new listing system gave inadequate time to the judges to require up the matters.

The bench of Justices Kaul and Abhay S Oka passed this order on Tuesday while adjourning hearing in a very case titled ‘Nagesh Chaudhary Vs State of Uttar Pradesh’ to November 15. It said, “The new listing system isn't giving an adequate time to require up matters fixed for hearing just like the present case as there are variety of matters within the span of ‘Afternoon’ session.” 

After taking oath because the 49th CJI, Justice Lalit had vowed to streamline listing of cases as his predecessor Justice N V Ramana conceded that he couldn't give much attention to the current area when advocates complained that fresh petitions weren't getting listed.

CJI Lalit-introduced listing system meant two distinct shifts for the 30 judges. On Mondays and Fridays, they assembled in 15 different benches to listen to freshly filed cases, which numbered over 60 on a daily basis. 

On Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the judges within the morning session (from 10-30 am till 1 pm) heard old cases involving important questions of law in an exceedingly combination of three-judge benches. within the afternoon, the two-judge benches were assigned 30-odd after-notice cases, to be dealt in 120 minutes, which amounted to every case elderly average four minutes of judicial attention. However, the CJI has already reduced the case count form 30 to twenty in these three days from Tuesday.

The rumblings among judges had started last week. A two-judge bench on Friday had refused to grant adjournment of hearing saying they need read the case file by working till late evening which the advocate must not expect them to devote time again for reading it afresh on another day. 

But, it absolutely was forced to adjourn hearing in another case, saying, “The case files reached us at the moment and that we had no time to read them.” With the ‘list of business’ published late within the day, the registry struggled to form available case files at the judges’ residences in time for the judges to read it.

Another two-judge bench on Friday pushed aside repeated requests from an advocate to mend the subsequent date of hearing for the case which was getting adjourned, and said that he wasn't ready to honour the dates he had fixed earlier for cases because the mode of listing has changed.