• The issue of lawyers frequently requesting adjournments in court has been a long-standing concern. In a 2016 judgment, Justice Dipak Misra criticized a lawyer who had managed to adjourn a case 15 times, effectively halting the proceedings.
  • Adjournments, which are delays of scheduled hearings to later dates, are governed by Order XVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It restricts courts from granting more than three adjournments per party during a suit’s hearing, among other rules.
  • However, the frequent adjournments contribute to a growing backlog of cases and a heavier workload in courts. This situation creates a vicious cycle where the heavy workload leads to more adjournments. The 239th Law Commission Report (2012) highlighted this issue, particularly in the context of delay in criminal cases at the trial court stage.
  • Last November, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud warned lawyers against making the Supreme Court a “tareekh pe tareekh court” (a court of endless dates), revealing that there had been 3,688 adjournment requests in the preceding two months alone.
2. Keeping the length of oral arguments in check
  • In constitutional bench matters, the Supreme Court often directs parties to create a schedule for oral arguments to ensure efficiency and avoid repetition. This practice dates back to the Ayodhya title dispute.
  • In January 2019, then CJI Ranjan Gogoi asked parties to create a hearing schedule due to the large number of parties and lawyers involved. However, the case was heard over 60 times before the judgment was reserved.
  • Recently, the court has had more success with this method. During CJI UU Lalit’s tenure, 25 constitution bench cases were listed, and in one of the first cases, a schedule was created and the hearings were completed in 8 days.
  • The court has also considered adopting an approach similar to the U.S. Supreme Court, where lawyers are instructed to limit their arguments to 30 minutes per side. This was discussed in the 99th Law Commission Report (1984), but most people were against imposing a strict limit.
  • The 230th Law Commission Report (2009) suggested limiting oral arguments to one-and-a-half hours, except in cases involving constitutional interpretation or complex legal questions.
3. Alternatives to long court vacations
  • The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has suggested the possibility of implementing flexi-time for lawyers and judges, a practice where employees can choose their working hours as long as they meet a set total number of hours.
  • A similar system was introduced in the Philippines’ Metropolitan and Regional trial courts in 2022.
  • The issue of court vacations has been raised in the past. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice suggested that High Court judges rotate their vacations to address the growing backlog of cases.
  • The central government has also criticized the judiciary for long vacations, especially as pending cases continue to rise. In 2011, the Ministry of Law and Justice requested that High Courts increase their working days to 222 per year, from an average of 210.
  • In 2014, the Supreme Court reduced the summer vacation from 10 weeks to a maximum of seven weeks, in line with the Malimath Committee Report’s (2003) recommendation to increase the Supreme Court’s working days by three weeks.
4. A level playing field for first-generation lawyers
  • CJI Chandrachud emphasized the importance of creating equal opportunities for first-generation lawyers and those from marginalized backgrounds. He noted that women now constitute 36.3% of district court judges and over 50% of junior civil judge candidates.
  • The Supreme Court’s Annual Report (September 2023) acknowledged the efforts of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to promote diversity in the legal profession, including better facilities for women lawyers and more opportunities for first-generation lawyers.
  • Justice Hima Kohli also recognized the increased representation of women and first-generation lawyers as a move towards inclusivity. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s bench, in two separate decisions, highlighted the growing number of first-generation lawyers and stressed the need for diversity in the designation of Senior Advocates.
  • The bench dismissed allegations that lawyers gain recognition only through wealth and proximity to the Bench as contemptuous.
Conclusion- The Chief Justice of India has highlighted several key issues within the judiciary that need to be addressed, including the culture of adjournments, the length of oral arguments and court vacations, and the need for a level playing field for first-generation lawyers and those from marginalized backgrounds. The judiciary has made strides in addressing these issues, with an increasing representation of women and first-generation lawyers. However, there is still a long way to go. The discussions around these issues are tough but necessary for the evolution of the judicial system and to ensure justice is accessible and efficient for all. The future of the judiciary lies in its ability to adapt and reform in response to these challenges.