Back
Supreme Court Proposes Daily 2-4 PM Slot for Long-Pending Cases
In a move aimed at clearing the staggering backlog of matters, the has floated a proposal to dedicate an afternoon slot—from 2 PM to 4 PM every day—for hearings in these critical cases. The suggestion, made by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Kant during a recent hearing, reflects a growing judicial concern over the prolonged pendency of matters involving substantial questions of constitutional law. , appearing before the Bench, concurred with the underlying urgency, acknowledging that the “ still remains because there are two contrary views. It will have to be settled.”
The proposal comes at a time when the docket of the Supreme Court is overflowing, with routine matters competing for the same finite judicial hours. cases—typically comprising five or more judges—often require extended, uninterrupted arguments, making them difficult to slot alongside the daily flood of miscellaneous petitions, fresh filings, and urgent listings. The CJI’s suggestion of a dedicated two-hour afternoon window seeks to carve out protected time for these weighty matters without allowing fresh cases to pile up, as he explicitly noted: “One possibility is to list these matters every day from 2 PM to 4 PM. We can hear them for two hours daily without allowing fresh matters to pile up.”
Background: The Long-Standing Pendency
Constitution Benches are convened when a case raises a as to the interpretation of the Constitution under . These Benches are often tasked with resolving conflicting judgments of smaller Benches, settling seminal questions on federalism, fundamental rights, and the . However, over the years, a significant number of such matters have languished for years—sometimes decades—owing to the difficulty of assembling a five-judge Bench and allocating sufficient hearing time amidst the regular caseload.
The current Chief Justice’s proactive stance on case management marks a departure from scheduling. In recent months, there has been increasing pressure from the bar and the bench to prioritise matters, given their systemic impact. The CJI’s daily afternoon slot proposal is a structural response to what is widely perceived as a crippling judicial backlog. By reserving two hours each day exclusively for hearings, the Court could potentially dispose of several pending references and clarifications within a defined timeframe.
Conflict of Judicial Views: The Core Issue
During the proceeding, Kapil Sibal highlighted the existence of two contrary views on the academic question before the Bench, emphasising the need for definitive settlement. His submission—“The still remains because there are two contrary views. It will have to be settled”—was met with a succinct “Precisely” from the CJI, underscoring the Bench’s recognition that unresolved are particularly problematic. Such contradictions often leave lower courts confused, leading to inconsistent applications of law across jurisdictions. A timely authoritative ruling is therefore not merely an administrative convenience but a constitutional necessity.
The precise legal question was not disclosed in the public remarks, but Sibal’s characterisation of it as “academic” suggests a point of law that recurs across multiple cases, making a essential. This scenario is typical of references arising from perceived conflicts between coordinate Bench decisions, where the Supreme Court must step in to clarify the authoritative interpretation.
The Proposed Options: Daily Slot vs. Three-Day Marathon
The CJI’s preferred model is a daily two-hour block, which would allow for steady, incremental progress on multiple matters simultaneously. He reasoned that this approach would prevent the accumulation of fresh cases while ensuring consistent attention to the long-pending ones. The alternative, proposed by Sibal, was to hear matters continuously across three consecutive days—Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday—in a more intensive, block-hearing format. This model might be more efficient for a single complex case that requires deep immersion, but the CJI flagged a practical difficulty: “That creates difficulty because routine, miscellaneous and fresh matters cannot then be taken up.”
Indeed, the Supreme Court’s daily calendar is a delicate balance. On any given working day, there are hearings before multiple Benches, including rosters for urgent admissions, bail applications, transfer petitions, and a host of . Shutting down regular business for three days could cause severe dislocation, potentially delaying urgent relief to litigants who depend on prompt interim orders. The CJI’s daily-slot proposal is designed to minimise disruption while still giving matters the dedicated attention they deserve.
Legal and Administrative Implications
From an administrative perspective, the adoption of a fixed afternoon slot would require the to re-evaluate its listing policy. Currently, matters are often scheduled on an basis, sometimes months apart, leading to loss of momentum and repeated re-arguments. A recurring daily time slot would impose a consistent rhythm, allowing counsel to prepare targeted submissions and enabling judges to retain familiarity with complex factual and legal matrices.
Moreover, the proposal underscores a broader shift towards proactive judicial case management, a concept increasingly recognised globally as essential for efficient justice delivery. By creating a “fast lane” for constitutional adjudication, the Court would signal that foundational questions—those affecting the interpretation of the Constitution itself—deserve priority over routine disputes. This could also have a deterrent effect on and strategic delay, as litigants would no longer be able to rely on the pendency of a to forestall final decisions.
However, the challenge of staffing a daily should not be underestimated. Typically, a five-judge Bench draws judges from various divisions, each with their own roster of pending cases. Coordinating their availability on a daily basis could strain the Court’s resources, particularly if judges need to manage multiple responsibilities. The CJI’s proposal would likely require a reallocation of judicial duties, perhaps creating a specialised division dedicated exclusively to work for a defined period.
Impact on the Legal Community
For the legal community, the prospect of steady, predictable hearings in matters is welcome news. Senior counsel who handle multiple matters can plan their calendars with greater certainty, and junior counsel assisting in these cases will benefit from a structured schedule. Moreover, the resolution of will provide clarity to High Courts and tribunals, reducing the need for litigants to file further appeals seeking resolution of the same issue.
Bar associations and law firms may also see this as an opportunity to develop specialised expertise in constitutional law, as the demand for rigorous academic preparation will rise. In the longer term, a faster turnover of decisions could enhance India’s judicial reputation, attracting foreign investment and strengthening the —a crucial factor in economic confidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s proposal to dedicate a daily afternoon slot for matters is a pragmatic response to a chronic systemic problem. While the exact mode of implementation remains open—whether the daily 2-4 PM window or the alternative three-day continuous hearing—the willingness of the Chief Justice to experiment with innovative scheduling is a positive signal. As the dialogue between the Bench and the Bar continues, one thing is clear: the Court is committed to ensuring that the Constitution’s interpretation is not left to languish in the shadows of procedural backlog. The final decision on methodology will require careful calibration of judicial resources, but the direction of travel is unmistakable. For now, litigants and lawyers alike await a formal order listing matters in the proposed time slot, hopeful that the forthcoming sessions will finally bring closure to the “academic issues” that have too long remained unresolved.
