Today, On 12th November, The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s leadership, has discontinued the practice of oral mentions for urgent hearings. Now, requests must be submitted through email or written slips, clearly stating the reason for urgency. This new approach aims to streamline the process, ensuring all cases are handled efficiently while maintaining clarity on the need for expedited hearings.
New Delhi: In a notable procedural shift, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, ended the practice of oral mentions for urgent hearings.
The CJI announced on Tuesday that “No written or oral mentionings anymore. Only in email or written slip. Just state the reasons of urgency,”. Instead, urgent hearing requests must be submitted “only in email or written slip,” with specific reasons provided for the urgency.
Previously, during former CJI DY Chandrachud’s tenure, oral mentioning allowed advocates to verbally request urgent listings, commonly in critical cases involving demolitions or imminent arrests.
Read Also: ‘Judiciary Is An Integral, Yet Distinct Part Of Governance:’ CJI Sanjiv Khanna
Oral mentioning has historically played a vital role in allowing advocates to secure urgent hearings for cases that could not afford delays cases often involving imminent arrests, demolitions, and other time-sensitive actions. Through oral mentions, advocates brought critical cases directly to the Chief Justice’s notice, bypassing the regular, more time-consuming procedure of written applications.
However, critics have argued that this practice allowed for a certain level of arbitrariness and preferential access, as only those advocates physically present and able to advocate vocally could take advantage of it. Some see the restriction of oral mentions as a push for a more structured, formalized process in the court.
However, some advocates argue that the immediacy of oral mentions provided an essential pathway for genuinely urgent cases, potentially lost with the new restrictions. For example, cases related to imminent arrests or demolitions often require an almost instant judicial response, which may not be feasible through a written or email-based request system.
Legal advocates worry that this shift could lead to delays, impacting parties relying on swift judicial intervention in critical situations.
The restriction of oral mentions by Chief Justice Khanna highlights the Supreme Court’s evolving approach to balancing efficiency with accessibility. While the reforms aim to streamline court procedures, the legal community remains divided on whether the absence of oral mentions might inadvertently slow down the judicial process for cases needing urgent attention.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
