Skip to main content

Time Management in Constitution Bench Hearings: Balancing Efficiency and Fair Representation


A Light-Hearted Remark, A Serious Issue

During a recent Constitution Bench hearing in the Supreme Court on the Article 370 case, a light moment between Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta went viral. The CJI suggested placing a clock behind the judges to remind lawyers to stick to their allotted time. To this, the Solicitor General quipped — "Some lawyers might need a calendar instead of a clock!"

Behind the humour lies a pressing concern for India’s judiciary — managing courtroom time effectively while ensuring that all voices are heard, especially in cases of constitutional significance.

Constitution Benches: The Powerhouses of Judicial Interpretation

Constitution Benches (CBs) of the Supreme Court, comprising five or more judges, are reserved for the most critical constitutional questions of the country. These benches have shaped India’s constitutional journey — decriminalising homosexuality, affirming privacy as a fundamental right, and scrutinising policies like the electoral bonds scheme.

However, the very nature of these cases means multiple stakeholders, extensive arguments, and hearings that often stretch over weeks. The result? Managing time becomes as challenging as deciding the case itself.

Why Time Management is Becoming Crucial

Oral arguments are the heart of India’s courtroom culture. But with increasing case complexity and docket pressure, courts have started exploring ways to regulate speaking time.

→ The new practice?

  • The first advocate on either side gets sufficient time to present core arguments.

  • The lawyers who follow are expected to focus on non-repetitive or supplementary points.

While this method appears logical, does it really ensure that every important voice gets heard?

Data Tells a Different Story

The JALDI Initiative’s Constitution Bench Time Tracker (CBTT) — a tool that analysed 23 Constitution Bench cases, 112 hearings, and 174 lawyers — offers fascinating insights.

Key Findings:

  • The first two advocates on each side occupy 76% of the total speaking time.

  • That leaves just 24% of time for all the remaining lawyers combined.

  • Senior Advocates alone accounted for 59% of total speaking time — with Supreme Court-designated seniors taking up 41%, and High Court-designated seniors taking up 18%.

  • In some cases, 37 or more advocates appeared — but many barely got a chance to speak.

The Real Concern: Fair Representation vs. Efficiency

While senior advocates bring expertise and gravitas, the skewed distribution of speaking time raises important questions:

  • Are diverse legal perspectives getting sidelined?

  • Are younger or less well-known lawyers able to contribute meaningfully?

  • Is courtroom time becoming the privilege of the elite few?

Rethinking Courtroom Time: The Way Forward

Balancing judicial efficiency with fair representation is no easy task. But possible solutions could include:

1. Structured Time Allocation

→ Not just by seniority but based on the uniqueness of arguments.

2. Emphasis on Written Submissions

→ Reserve oral arguments for clarification or highlighting key issues.

3. Transparent Time Tracking

→ Tools like CBTT should be used regularly to maintain accountability.

4. Mentorship in Courtrooms

→ Senior advocates can share argument time with junior lawyers, nurturing future leaders.

Conclusion: The Clock is Ticking — But for Whom?

Time management in Constitution Bench hearings is more than just about courtroom discipline. It reflects the deeper question of access and fairness within India’s highest court.

As India’s constitutional discourse evolves, so too must its courtroom practices — to ensure that justice is not just done, but is seen to be inclusive, representative, and fair.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrine of Arbitrariness Under Article 14: Landmark E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Explained

Introduction Equality is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Article 14 , which guarantees “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision forms the foundation of India’s legal structure, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in applying laws. The interpretation of Article 14 evolved significantly over time, especially with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) , which introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This legal turning point  expanded the meaning of equality beyond mere classification. Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision ensures that all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender, or place of birth, are treated equally under the...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more

Coalgate Scam (2014) – Supreme Court’s Verdict on Coal Block Allocations in India

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...
Post a Comment
Read more