Finding The Next Date

Waiting for the next date can be anxiety-inducing. I don't mean that romantically. I'm referring to what most litigants face as their cases wind through the Indian justice system. Two questions that counsel routinely receive from clients are 'what happened in my case' and 'when is the next court hearing date'. The answer to the second question – the hearing date – is more complex than meets the eye.

The Supreme Court of India, after a preliminary hearing, sets subsequent hearing dates in a few different ways. The Court, at times, orders a fixed or specified next date of hearing. In such case, for example, the fortunate litigant will see included in the court's order something to the effect of: “list on 27.08.2026”.

Quite often though, the Court directs the listing of any case after a set period of time, say after “two weeks” or “six weeks”. While one might expect the case to automatically list after the set period, it does not. In reality, the order means 'don't list this case before such time and await a computerized tentative next date'. In this scenario, the online case status on the Supreme Court website soon reflects a tentative next date. There's also the practice where some orders have no mention of a next date either before the Court or the Registrar and merely grants a specific period of time to file pleadings within. This again invites a tentative computerized date.

The shifty tentative date

Generally, a tentative online date, unless backed by a Court order specifying a fixed date, remains just that – wholly tentative. When the tentative date arrives, the case doesn't get assigned to the Court docket for an actual listing. Instead, the tentative date soon jumps to another tentative computerized date, often in endless repeated cycles. The only way to capture the ever-elusive Tentative Date and turn it into an actual court assigned date, is for an Advocate-on Record in the case to file a “not-to-be-deleted” application. This is essentially a procedural memo that requests the Court to convert the next tentative date into a Court assigned date that guarantees an actual listing. Not to be deleted mentioning's are rather generously allowed by the Court but leave your next date to the mercy of technology.

The urgent date

The demands of justice often deny litigants the luxury of waiting for the computer-generated next date. A longer wait in some cases could mean a contested property gets sold to a third party or an accused person ends up under arrest. Here, enters the concept of an urgent mentioning for an early listing. For urgent mentioning, counsel submit a mentioning proforma that puts them on a mentioning list to mention urgent matters before the Court. Each person in the mentioning queue gets around twenty to thirty seconds to explain the urgency to the Court when it assembles at 10:30 am. If the Court is convinced of the urgency, the mentioning is allowed and you get an earlier date. If your mentioning is denied you are left with your tentative date. Masquerading unurgent circumstances as urgent carries the obvious risk of inviting the Court's wrath.

The final date

Often, in cases where the Supreme Court after preliminary hearings decide to admit appeals for a more extended final hearing [Formally known as “granting leave” or “issuing rule”], the Court does so without specifying a fixed date of hearing. Consequentially, final hearing matters are sent to a final hearing list that could be months or years in the waiting to generate.

Towards a less traumatic next date

Counsel have a very hard time explaining all this to clients. A few suspect that their lawyers are either incompetent or lack diligence to provide a more specific next date or timeline for completing the case. The odd client might even wonder if next dates are being withheld till the outstanding invoice is cleared. Not to be deleted mentioning's unfortunately leave your next date to the mercy of technology. On the other hand, urgency mentioning leaves you at the mercy of the Court that only has a split second to decide if your matter warrants earlier listing.

Undoubtedly, all this mentioning leaves Advocates-on-Record scurrying about with the stress of getting matters routinely listed, apart from mercilessly taxing an overburdened registry and constantly overworked Supreme Court judges.

While it may not be possible or even desirable to entirely eliminate the mentioning system, here are two potentially simple solutions that could make a big difference. The first is to grant fixed or specified next dates routinely across all matters. This is a practice adopted by the Delhi High Court that sees no “not to be deleted” mentioning and sits only two kilometers apart from the Indian Supreme Court. The second is to have all applications filed in pending cases (most of which seek some urgent directions or relief from the court) automatically listed at very short intervals like every Monday or Friday [presently known as 'miscellaneous days': when the Court hears fresh cases].

Towards reform that benefits all institutional stakeholders

These simple solutions may save counsels, litigants, judges and the court registry unnecessary stress, time, anxiety, money and paper. It could also eliminate a fair amount of suspicion over inherent unfairness in how cases are listed or over arbitrary reliance on counsel's face value to expedite a case listing. Nothing in Article 145 of the Constitution that grants the Supreme Court the power to frame its procedural rules, nor the presently in-force Supreme Court Rules of 2013 bar solutions of this nature.

Sometimes, things remain the way they are only because that's how things have always been. One hopes that is not the case here. While larger Supreme Court reforms continue to be debated, surely it would not hurt for the one of the world's most powerful Constitutional Courts to give all litigants fixed next dates. With the upcoming Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association [a class of practitioners licensed to practice before the Supreme Court] Executive Committee elections -2026 around the corner, the spotlight turns to the newly elected office bearers. Hopefully they will make long overdue – practical - institutional reform a living reality. Reform that equally aids the Supreme Court judges, the registry, counsel and litigants in a more efficient dispensation of justice. None will be left poorer for it.

Author is a practicing Advocate at Supreme Court of India. Views are personal.