For the last few months, the relations between the Supreme Court registry and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) have been anything but cordial. It appears that they are again on a collision path. This time, the provocation is the Circular dated 14 May 2015 issued by the Supreme Court registry as per which henceforth all urgent matters shall be mentioned orally only before the Chief Justice of India and it further directs that the practice of “listed mentioning” before the Deputy Registrar (Mentioning) shall stand discontinued in supersession of all circulars issued earlier on this subject. A photo-copy of this circular is reproduced below:
The SCBA has strongly protested against this Circular vide its letter dated 16 May 2015 signed by Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Secretary, SCBA, which is addressed to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. The Contents of this SCBA letter are reproduced below:
“Dear Sir,
- I am writing to inform you that the President and Members of the Executive Committee, as also Members of the Bar, are shocked and dismayed to see the circular dated 14.05.2015 issued by the Registry, which was delivered to SCBA Office yesterday afternoon and which discontinues the long standing practice of ‘Listed Mentioning’ before the Deputy Registrar and mandates that all urgent matters shall be mentioned orally only before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. This circular specifically supersedes all earlier circulars issued in this regard and stipulates that the new procedure shall come into force with effect from 1st July, 2015.
- The long standing existing practice of ‘Listed Mentioning’ which has remained in force for the last several years, is based on uniform, set and specified parameters, on compliance of which, all urgent matters, including matters relating to personal liberty and other matters where urgent interim orders are prayed for, are accepted for Listed Mentioning. Such mentioning before the Deputy Registrar is accompanied by a written Note of Urgency signed by the concerned Advocate-on-Record or an Affidavit of Urgency of the client to justify urgency, which then forms part of Court Record. These matters are listed for hearing as ‘Listed Mentioning’ matters on the next working day, along with paper books, where all formalities have been completed by 4 pm, before different Benches depending on rosters on the basis of subject matter.
- You would agree Sir, that the present system also has enough safeguards. The Deputy Registrar does not mechanically accept and list every matter before the Hon’ble Court and only matters which fulfill the criteria laid down in practice circulars and cannot wait for normal listing are accepted for inclusion in this list. Even though, these days, SLPs are listed earlier than before, there is still a gap of a week or so and many a times matters cant wait that long.
- What is shocking is that this existing practice, which is uniform, just, reasonable and has always existed in addition to oral mentioning, has been done away with, without any consultation with the Bar, whatsoever. It also appears from the circular dated 14.05.2015 that even pending matters may have to be mentioned only before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India as all urgent matters are now mandatorily required to be mentioned orally only before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
- The SCBA strongly believes that to confine all urgent mentioning to one court alone would not only become an extremely cumbersome exercise, with mentioning queues already extending into long aisle up to the doors of Court hall No.1, it is bound to perpetrate chaos and frustration and does not augur well with settled fundamentals of dispensation of Justice. It is also humanly not possible for Hon’ble CJI to hear all urgent mentioning and for the lawyers to apprise him of their urgency in the extremely limited time period, that is available during oral mentioning at 10.30 am. The Bench does not have the benefit of a paperbook during oral mentioning and many a times, unless the paper book is there, it is difficult to demonstrate urgency.
- The problem is bound to be alarming for Young Lawyers, who are naturally not very confident and take a little time to articulate their submissions, as they would stand little chance to get their mattes listed and the litigants would be forced to engage Senior Counsels even for oral mentioning. This practice will, thus add one more tier to the system before the matter can actually be heard on merits. Existing practice was clearly very healthy and comfortable and we are dismayed to note that in such crucial matters SCBA was not even informed earlier, much less consulted and taken into confidence.
- We do believe that even assuming the system is abused by some does not call for withdrawal of the same. The present practice allows Lawyers and AORs especially young ones, to get their matters listed in case of need. These Lawyers do not have large number of matters and so for them, listing by Regstry is crucial. It is unfair to expose them to the Court of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, as many lack skills and confidence to persuade the Honble Court unlike Seniors. So from any which way you look at it the Circular deserves to be withdrawn forthwith.
- We wish to register our strong protest to the said circular dated 14.05.2015 and request you to withdraw the same and continue and restore the traditional and tried practice of Listed Mentioning, through open and transparent mechanism and give just and uniform opportunity to all matters so as to subserve the cause of Justice.
Best Regards,
Aishwarya Bhati
Secretary, SCBA”
As mentioned in the above representation of SCBA, the discontinuation of the practice of “listed mentioning” is likely to cause great hardship to the advocates (specially the junior ones) and clients. The clients may have to pay one more day’s professional fee to a senior advocate to orally mention the matter before the court of the Chief Justice of India for an urgent listing, wherever it is necessary.
