Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court lawyers meet to resolve procedural differences

NEW DELHI: There’s truce now but make no mistake, a strong battle of wills preceded the civilised compromise.

Two judicial powerhouses — the office of the Chief Justice of India ( CJI) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) — came close to clashing over judicial procedure. However, quiet negotiations brought peace.

ET spoke to those familiar with the chief justice’s approach on the matter, many senior lawyers and some former Supreme Court justices for this report. Some spoke on the condition that they not be identified.

The origins of the differences between the bench and the bar were in determining the proper procedure on the matter of seeking adjournments and listing of cases.

Chief Justice HL Dattu has been keen to reduce case backlog, specifically, mark it down from 61,000 currently to 50,000 by May, people familiar with his thinking told ET.

To that end, CJI Dattu, who demits office in December, had taken the view some time back that cases are best not deferred and had been asking lawyers to prepare accordingly, court officials said. Also, the time between listing a case and hearing it was reduced. Conventionally, cases are listed weeks before the actual hearing.

Supreme Court lawyers posited two arguments. First, that some adjournments were necessary to allow better preparation and taking care of contingencies. Second, that shortening the time between listing cases and hearing them would make hiring of top-notch and out-of-station lawyers difficult.

This difference in approach between the bar and the bench resulted in SCBA considering, in mid-February, the unusual move of passing a resolution on CJI’s approach. The bar association, headed by senior advocate Dushyant Dave, framed a resolution that essentially argued against what it saw as placing speed over quality.

The court was not giving sufficient time to lawyers to argue their cases, the resolution read. SCBA demanded at least a week’s notice before a matter was listed for hearing.

However, lawyers and court officials aware of developments told ET, SCBA members and CJI had a meeting in early March and CJI then assured SCBA’s concerns will be heard.

CJI is learnt to have told senior lawyers that these problems hadn’t been brought to his notice earlier and he would deal with any requests from the bar sensitively.

Lawyers and court officials say the bench’s approach to this matter of judicial procedure has since then been somewhat different — since the last fortnight or so.

More requests for adjournment are granted now.Some court observers say the backlog may not get cleared as fast as it should be given SCBA’s demands.

But SCBA head Dave disputes this. He told ET the bar would be the first to help out in dealing with any problem if its help were sought.

“However, lawyers must have sufficient notice of their cases.”

Dave also said all issues have been sorted out to mutual satisfaction. “The meeting (between CJI and SCBA) ended on a positive note with both sides deciding to work together,” he said.

Lawyers and former judges ET spoke to agreed that speed was necessary but also that cases must get proper hearing. Senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan said that there was much to be said on both sides of the debate. But he also said “the Supreme Court’s integrity will collapse if proper hearings are not given.”

Former CJI VN Khare said: “The bar and the bench are two wheels of a vehicle. The vehicle cannot move on one wheel, can it? There's no doubt that lawyers take unnecessary adjournments sometimes. But that can be sorted out. However, cases can’t be disposed off without a proper hearing….”

People familiar with CJI’s approach said there was optimism that the case backlog may come down to 50,000 by May since special tax and criminal benches have started functioning.