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

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...
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