Urgent matters in the Supreme Court will no longer be accepted through oral mentioning. CJI Surya Kant has directed that only written mentioning slips explaining the cause of urgency will be considered for immediate listing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant today made it clear that urgent listings in the Supreme Court will not be taken up through oral mentioning, and that lawyers must submit a written mentioning slip specifying the cause of urgency.
The remark came in response to an advocate mentioning a demolition-related matter for immediate hearing before the Bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice AS Chandurkar.
“If you have any urgent mentioning, give your mentioning slip along with the cause of urgency. The Registrar will examine it and if we find an element of urgency, we will take it up,”
the CJI stated, reiterating that the court will not adopt oral requests for out-of-turn listing.
The clarification marks yet another reminder from the top court about the increasing strain on the judicial system due to the volume of requests for instant hearings.
Two months ago, before taking charge as CJI, Justice Surya Kant had declined to list a matter that had been mentioned orally immediately. He had famously remarked:
“Unless someone is about to be hanged, I will never list a mentioned case on the same day.”
He had also highlighted the workload and pressures on the judiciary, noting that judges often operate with minimal sleep and heavy case burdens, and that urgent listing should be reserved for exceptional situations, especially those involving personal liberty.
Normally, mentioning is done before the Chief Justice of India at the start of the court day. However, since CJI Surya Kant was sitting on a five-judge Constitution Bench, the duties were handled by the second-most senior judge, Justice Surya Kant himself, on a different bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh, in a case related to the auction of a house.
The CJI nonetheless maintained the same position: oral mentioning could not override established listing procedures.
The issue of urgent mentions has been part of a broader discussion on the workload of judges and the rising criticism of the judiciary.
Last year, Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court had publicly expressed disappointment over criticism directed at judges despite their long hours and demanding schedules:
“It is unfortunate that despite the hard work that we put in, judges are criticized… We have vacations right now and are still burning the midnight oil.”
Justice Datta also pointed out that government agencies often contributed to delays by not filing appeals on time, while the judiciary was later blamed for the backlog.
During the same hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the judiciary, telling the court that “People don’t realize that judges work in two shifts.”
Click Here to Read More Reports On CJI Surya Kant