Timed advocacy

In the final week of 2025, the Supreme Court Registry issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) mandating all arguing counsel file written submissions at least three days prior to the hearing. The Court’s concern is with length—it caps this note to a maximum of five pages. It also requires lawyers to file a note, at least a day prior to the hearing, on how much time they will take to make their oral arguments. The SOP, which applies to all post-notice and regular hearing matters, requires counsel to strictly adhere to the timelines fixed. 

The SOP is meant to address the familiar drift in regular hearing matters, where the day’s board is consumed by one or two ‘heavy’ cases which often feature a battery of counsel making repetitive arguments. The Court must hope that formalising a ‘ticking clock’ for oral arguments will encourage counsel to be more focussed and ensure that proceedings don’t meander. This, in turn, will help the Registry and the benches to plan the arc of their days and weeks more rationally. 

At present, a bench typically begins the day with a causelist but without a reliable sense of how long each listed matter will take. Having a sense of the length of oral arguments will help it decide, for example, that one long final hearing will occupy the first half of the day, followed by two shorter matters, and then miscellaneous or admission matters. It can also decide in advance which matters can realistically be completed and which should not be taken up at all that day. Benches have occasionally imposed ad hoc limits, but the SOP aims to formalise it.

It’s easy to see why counsel may resist any time limits, given the argument that nuance lives in dialogue. In its 99th Report (1984), the Law Commission concluded it was unwise to prescribe “rigid or mathematically precise” limits on oral arguments. It recommended judges obtain “time estimates” from both sides, without any hard and fast limits—ultimately, judicial “good sense” should take precedence. 

Eminent jurist H.M. Seervai was quoted by the Commission as warning that strict time curbs could become “an outrage” if they prevent counsel from completing submissions. Seervai argued that United States-style short oral arguments can only work with extensive research support and a clear-cut work calendar. His framing helps explain why the Indian court system has tolerated prolixity: it is often treated as a substitute for scattered records, incomplete briefs and capacity strain. 

A later Law Commission Report (2009) moved closer to the logic now advanced by the SOP.  Drawing on suggestions from Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, it recommended that lawyers curtail “prolix and repetitive arguments”, supplement oral submissions with written notes and restrict arguments to one hour and thirty minutes except in complex constitutional matters. Both the 2009 Report and the SOP double down on written preparation so oral arguments can be used for targeted clarification rather than full-scale narration. 

Chief Justice Surya Kant has a distributive rationale for this move—lengthy arguments by resource-heavy litigants and Senior Advocates should not eat into the time of ordinary and poor litigants. Indeed, one of the parameters on which courts and Chiefs should be judged is how they use their time. Whether the new SOP delivers will depend on how benches enforce adherence when complex cases overflow, whether time budgets are negotiable on hearing day, and how litigants without the benefit of senior lawyers are protected from procedural disadvantage. Much has been said about the loquaciousness of our lawyers—for now, the Court has finally taken a step to match words with action.

This article was first featured in SCO’s Weekly newsletter. Sign up now!

SUBSCRIBE!