Sabarimala Reference | Arguments time split

On 14 May, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court reserved judgement in the Sabarimala reference after 16 days of arguments. The Court had initially allocated only eight days to conclude the proceedings, aligning with CJI Surya Kant’s approach of limiting the time spent on oral observations and the length of written submissions to clear Constitution Bench cases efficiently. However, the Sabarimala reference did not survive this test, extending eight days beyond schedule.

In a previous analysis, we wrote that parties were unlikely to agree to the prescribed timelines, as each side’s tentative timeline exceeded the original allocation. On Day 1, Chief Justice Surya Kant reminded counsel that the Court had set aside eight days, allocating three days each to review petitioners and respondents, and two days for rejoinder and amicus submissions. He stated: “Now, what we find from the list of those who are representing now review petitioners or the party supporting them that you are not adhering to this timeline and that creates problem for us.” He added that urgent matters were getting delayed and noted that the Court would not grant additional time.

Expectedly, the reference ran longer. In total, arguments went on for 58 hours and 23 minutes. In this article, we break down the time taken by each party and counsel.

Review petitioners argued for 40 hours 25 minutes 

Figure 1 plots the time taken by each review petitioner counsel in minutes, offering a granular breakdown of oral argument lengths.

In total, 56 lawyers appeared for the review petitioners—including eight women—over nine days of arguments, including rejoinder submissions. The chart lists the counsel in descending order of time taken rather than their order of appearance.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta led the charge for the Union of India, arguing for 459 minutes (7 hours and 39 minutes). This was the longest single oral argument of the entire hearing, accounting for 19% of the review petitioners’ total time. Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi followed, arguing for 261 minutes (4 hours and 21 minutes), taking up the whole of Day 4. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium argued for 206 minutes (3 hours and 26 minutes across Days 6 and 7.

The eight women counsel argued for a grand total of 46 minutes and 32 seconds. 

The pacing of the hearings shifted dramatically. Over the first eight days, the Court heard 22 counsel, who averaged 1 hour and 37 minutes each. By contrast, 34 counsel swamped the schedule on Day 9, averaging just 7 minutes each. Figure 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the time taken by each advocate.

While argument per individual was relatively lower than usual, the overall time taken for review petitioners to conclude depended heavily on the sheer number of counsel who appeared. 

The number of counsel appearing for the review petitioners was not unknown to the Bench. A list of arguing counsel for the review petitioners, submitted to the Court, listed all 56 of them. The document had initially proposed a timeline of 14 days for review petitioners alone, 11 days more than the timeline the Court intended to provide in its February order. 

Respondents argued for 17 hours and 58 minutes

Figure 2 illustrates the time taken by the 25 counsel representing the respondents, which included five women.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising delivered the longest argument on Day 10, speaking for 251 minutes (4 hours and 11 minutes). Her submissions accounted for 20.81% of the respondents’ total time. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran followed, arguing for 167 minutes (2 hours and 47 minutes). Together, the five women counsel—including Jaising—argued for a combined total of 4 hours and 51 minutes. 

On Day 13, CJI Surya Kant remarked that he had not imposed timelines on the respondents, largely because the Bench’s own questions had consumed considerable time. He noted: “In this process, the Respondent’s side has gained more time than what we granted to the review petitioners already.” 

Interestingly, when he made this comment, the review petitioners had already taken nine days to conclude, while the respondents were only on their fourth day of submissions. Ultimately, the respondents concluded in six days, matching their initial estimate.

(Charu Sabharwal, intern at the Supreme Court Observer, assisted the data collection process)