Court has become competing arena of who gets to argue the longest; there should be restriction on time period for oral submissions: Supreme Court

The judgment by the Supreme Court in the case between Facebook India and Delhi Legislative Assembly also contained a post script albeit on a different issue - about the extraordinary amount of time being consumed by hearings and the bulky nature of pleadings (Ajit Mohan v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi)..The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy lamented that Supreme Court has become a competing arena of who gets to argue for the longest time."We really doubt whether any judicial forum anywhere in the world would allow such time periods to be taken for oral submissions and these be further supplemented by written synopsis thereafter," the Court said. Much as the legal fraternity would not want, restriction of time period for oral submissions is an aspect which must be brought into force, the Court emphasised..The observations were made after the Court noted that 26 hours of judicial time was spent on hearing the Facebook v. Delhi Assembly case. "The saga of the hearing lasted 26 hours – which is a lot of judicial time. Daily time period was recorded. Apart from pleadings, there were written synopses, additional written synopses, rejoinders and replies filed liberally by both parties. The convenience compilations themselves were very voluminous, in contradiction to their very purpose," the Court noted. It expressed apprehensions about how the situation would turn out once the COVID pandemic is over and the Court resumes full-fledged functioning which will see a surge in number or cases pending for adjudication. .What is the way forward, the Court asked itself before answering,"Counsels must be clear on the contours of their submissions from the very inception of the arguments. This should be submitted as a brief synopsis by both sides and then strictly adhered to. Much as the legal fraternity would not want, restriction of time period for oral submissions is an aspect which must be brought into force.".The top court has further stated that on every aspect there may be multiple judgments and that in the view of the top court, when proposition of law is not doubted by the Court, it does not need a precedent unless asked for."If a question is raised about a legal proposition, the judgment must be relatable to that proposition – and not multiple judgments. In our view if the proposition of law is not doubted by the Court, it does not need a precedent unless asked for. If a question is raised about a legal proposition, the judgment must be relatable to that proposition – and not multiple judgments," the judgment said. .The Court also observed that many a time when judgments of Privy Council or the earlier years of the Supreme Court are referred to by parties, they are short and crisp judgments. "In a technological age like ours, all that is required is to instruct the junior counsel to take out all judgments on a particular point of view and submit it to the court in a nice spiral binding," the apex court suggested. .The Court also bemoaned that it has become a "court of interim proceedings". "In fact, interim orders in civil proceedings are of no precedential value. This is the reason it is said that we have become courts of interim proceedings where final proceedings conclude after ages- only for another round to start in civil proceedings of execution," the Cour said. In criminal matters, even bail matters are being argued for hours together and at multiple levels, the Court further stated. .The three-judge bench has clarified that the purpose of the post script is only to start a discussion among the legal fraternity on the importance of having a succinctly framed written synopsis in advance followed by oral arguments restricted to a limited time periodThis will ensure that judgments delivered by the Court are also crisp, clear and precise so that the common man can understand the same. "After all, it is for ‘the common man’ that the judicial system exists," the Court said..[Read Judgment]