Mentionings and judicial delays: Is it the Bar or the Bench at fault?

Chief Justice of India TS Thakur’s teary eyed speech got a great deal of media attention. And the reactions on social media and elsewhere pointed towards general sympathy for the overburdened judiciary..However, whether the Bar views pendency of cases and inadequacy of judges as a serious problem or not remains a moot question..If the unlisted mentioning that happens before the Chief Justice of India at ten-thirty in the morning is anything to go by, then it could very well be time for some introspection by the Bar (and perhaps the Bench too)..Yesterday, the unlisted mentioning went on for a good thirty-five minutes in the Chief’s court; the first matter was taken up well past eleven. There were 34 cases listed in court number one of the Supreme Court of India; only 21 were heard..In effect, the unlisted oral mentioning ate into a significant chunk of the court’s time. Out of the four and a half hours that the courts are sitting, mentionings take up to half an hour. In other words, more than 10% of the court’s sitting time is taken up through this practice..Worse, all kinds of requests are made by lawyers during oral mentioning including the simple “permission to file rejoinder” to the prayer “for early listing” on the ground of urgency..It is a known fact that mentioning is used by any number of Senior Advocates to secure early hearing for cases which they project as “urgent”. This often leads to unpleasant allegations against the Bench. That apart, another scene often witnessed in the Supreme Court is of a junior lawyer sent to the front to mention matters which his or her senior believes will be disallowed – the junior thus being made cannon fodder..The practice of unlisted mentioning reached its height during the days of Justice Altamas Kabir, and was slowly reined in by the subsequent Chief Justices, notably Justice RM Lodha. .With Justice Dattu’s reluctance to entertain mentioning matters, oral mentioning had reduced considerably until the current CJI took over..Which is not to say CJI TS Thakur has not tried to stem the flow. Just last month, CJI Thakur had, in fact, stopped oral mentioning midway while expressing his displeasure in strong words,.“It think we should stop. You take up one hour of our time”..More than half the lawyers, who had queued up that day for mentioning, had returned disappointed. In a repeat of the same, the CJI made sure that he started the board at 10.45 am today, a good majority of lawyers not being allowed to mention matters once again..However, these actions have not discouraged the Bar. Courts are chock-a-block, particularly on Mondays and Fridays, for oral mentioning which takes up anything between 30 to 45 minutes of the court’s time. Many times, mentioning goes on for an hour before the court begins to hear listed cases..But can the Bar be squarely blamed for this? Besides being under pressure from the clients to deliver, lawyers also have to balance their own work schedule with cases clashing in different courts. And mentioning is an effective and safe tool to avoid these potential clashes..Reactions on social media, largely from lawyers, puts the blame on the Bench for indulging the Bar unnecessarily during oral mentioning..One thing is certain: if CJI TS Thakur wishes to make some genuine improvements at the Supreme Court, a reduction or streamlining of oral mentioning should definitely be at the top of the agenda..The court’s time is ultimately, the tax payer’s time..Image taken from here.