New Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna’s directive prohibiting oral mentioning of cases for urgent listing has stirred mixed responses from the legal fraternity with one section terming it “commendable” while others want the current practice to continue to deal with “extremely urgent cases”. The new policy, announced Today (Nov 12), 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.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[BREAKING] CJI Sanjiv Khanna's Policy to Ban Oral Mentioning for Urgent Cases Draws Mixed Reactions by Lawyers](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/image-38.png?resize=550%2C306&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: The directive by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to prohibit the oral mentioning of cases for urgent listing has sparked varied responses from the legal community. While some lawyers see this shift as “commendable,” others argue for the continuation of oral mentions to address “extremely urgent cases” swiftly.
The newly announced policy, introduced on Tuesday, represents a break from the long-standing practice where lawyers sought urgent hearings by orally mentioning cases before the CJI-led bench at the beginning of each day’s proceedings.
Previously, former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had implemented a system allowing urgent case mentions through email submissions. However, this approach was not fully realized in practice, as oral mentions continued under his tenure. The daily oral mentioning practice, traditionally held at 10:30 a.m., typically occupies about half an hour of judicial time.
This practice also created opportunities for well-resourced clients to secure expedited hearings by enlisting senior advocates.
Now, under CJI Khanna’s directive, urgent listing requests must be made exclusively via email or written applications, with explicit reasons for urgency clearly stated. Top lawyers are often engaged to mention cases and secure priority listing for their clients, reportedly receiving substantial fees for brief appearances.
“No written or oral mentionings anymore. Only in email or written slip/letters. Just state the reasons for urgency,”
-Justice Khanna emphasized at the start of judicial proceedings on his second day as CJI.
Among the prominent voices calling for a return to oral mentioning are former Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh, as well as senior advocates H.S. Phoolka and Vijay Hansaria, who believe oral mentions are essential for “extremely urgent cases.”
According to Singh,
“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.”
Phoolka echoed this sentiment, noting that under CJI Chandrachud, email submissions were encouraged but oral mentions were not restricted.
“An exception should be carved out, in extremely urgent matters, oral mentioning should be permitted,”
-Phoolka added.
Hansaria, another senior lawyer, underscored the limitations of the new policy, explaining that
“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.”
In contrast, some legal experts welcomed the new policy. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra endorsed the decision, highlighting its potential for efficiency.
“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 said.
![[BREAKING] CJI Sanjiv Khanna's Policy to Ban Oral Mentioning for Urgent Cases Draws Mixed Reactions by Lawyers](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DBB.jpg?resize=400%2C225&ssl=1)
Advocate Ashwani Dubey also praised the move, calling it a-
“laudable and commendable step.”
According to Dubey,
“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.”
The Supreme Court registry has established clear protocols for submitting fresh cases to the appropriate benches. If the cases are not scheduled by the registry based on the lawyers’ submissions, attorneys have traditionally mentioned these cases before the CJI-led bench each morning at 10:30 a.m.
This new policy aims to streamline the process and mitigate the potential for preferential treatment, leveling the playing field by ensuring all cases meet established criteria before reaching the CJI.
Overall, while this new directive seeks to create a more efficient and impartial system, the debate among legal professionals underscores the importance of balancing efficiency with the flexibility needed for handling “extremely urgent cases.”
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
