To improve time management in Constitution Bench hearings, the Supreme Court may need to emphasize written submissions and limit lengthy oral arguments.
NEW DELHI: During a Supreme Court Constitution Bench hearing on Article 370, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud humorously suggested installing a clock behind the bench to help advocates adhere to estimated time limits for oral arguments. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta quipped that some advocates might need a calendar instead. This exchange highlights
“the ongoing challenge of managing time in Constitution Bench (CB) hearings while ensuring fair representation of arguments”
The Role of Constitution Benches in Legal Interpretation
Constitution Benches, comprising five or more Supreme Court judges, hear cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation. Historically, CBs have played a pivotal role in shaping Indian jurisprudence, settling critical issues such as the decriminalization of homosexuality, recognizing the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and determining the legality of the electoral bonds scheme.
Given their significance, CBs require substantial judicial resources and time. The sheer length of these hearings often raises concerns about efficiency and equitable argument allocation.
The Debate on Time Allocation in Oral Arguments
Oral advocacy is central to India’s legal tradition. The 99th Law Commission, while evaluating the possibility of limiting oral arguments, encountered resistance from eminent jurists like HM Seervai, who described interrupting a counsel’s argument as an “outrage.” However, the challenge remains—how to ensure efficiency without curtailing advocacy.
Justice Chandrachud, as master of the roster, acknowledged the difficulty in scheduling CB cases without time rationing. During the same-sex marriage case, he emphasized the necessity of structured time management to accommodate multiple voices.
To streamline proceedings, a new system was introduced where advocates provided estimated timeframes for their arguments. The first advocate was allotted significant time to present the case comprehensively, while subsequent advocates were expected to focus only on additional points to prevent redundancy. However, the effectiveness of this practice remains a matter of analysis—who ultimately gets to speak the most, and how fairly is time distributed?
Efficiency Gains: Insights from the CBTT Data
The Justice Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) initiative, through its Constitution Bench Time Tracker (CBTT), monitors argument durations using live-streamed Supreme Court recordings. This initiative has compiled data from 23 cases, 112 hearings, and 174 advocates to examine oral argument efficiency.
CBTT data reveals that the lead advocates in a case—typically the first to argue for either side—used an average of 39% of the total argument time. Moreover, the first two advocates for the petitioner and the first two for the respondent collectively consumed 76% of the total argument time, leaving only 24% for all remaining advocates.
Interestingly, the number of participating advocates has ranged from as few as 4 to more than 37 per case. In some instances, this meant that many lawyers received only minimal opportunity to present their arguments, reinforcing concerns about equitable representation.
Despite these disparities, structured time allocation appears to enhance overall efficiency, enabling CBs to handle complex matters within a constrained judicial timeframe.
The Influence of Senior Advocates: Dominance in Oral Arguments
A key consequence of structured argumentation is the predominance of Senior Advocates in CB proceedings. CBTT data shows that 59% of the advocates heard in these cases held Senior Advocate designations—41% by the Supreme Court and 18% by High Courts.
Prior research (Aparna Chandra et al., 2023) has highlighted
“how Senior Advocates significantly influence the admission of Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court”
While some scholars argue that their expertise is underutilized in substantial matters, CBTT data contradicts this view—at least for Constitution Bench cases. The findings indicate that the judiciary heavily relies on Senior Advocates to navigate the intricate constitutional questions at hand.
The Need for Balance: Enhancing Efficiency Without Compromising Advocacy
The heavy reliance on Senior Advocates underscores
“the need for a balanced approach to time allocation. While their expertise undoubtedly enriches deliberations, judicial time remains a limited resource”
For instance, in the Article 370 case, petitioners initially submitted a time schedule estimating 60 hours for their arguments. However, under Justice Chandrachud’s directive, they reduced this by 20 hours. This case-specific intervention highlights
“The Court’s discretionary role in time management, but it also raises concerns about consistency in such decisions”
Given the Supreme Court’s backlog, with 28 main Constitution Bench matters and 246 connected matters still pending, a more structured and standardized approach may be necessary. One possible solution is to place greater reliance on written submissions while ensuring oral arguments remain precise and substantive.
Managing argument time in Constitution Bench cases is a delicate balancing act between efficiency and advocacy. The dominance of Senior Advocates and the prioritization of lead counsel have improved efficiency but have also raised concerns about the inclusivity of legal representation.
With an increasing number of complex constitutional matters pending before the Supreme Court, both the Bar and the Bench must work collaboratively to refine oral advocacy structures. By encouraging concise arguments, strengthening reliance on written submissions, and ensuring fairer time distribution, the judiciary can enhance efficiency while safeguarding access to constitutional justice.
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE