NEW DELHI: CJI-designate DY Chandrachud-led five-judge constitution bench on Tuesday gave the preview of a new hearing procedure to be practised by the Supreme Court — soft copies of written submissions, common compilation of case laws and preferably fixed duration for arguments by lawyers.
Hearings before constitution benches have always been long-drawn involving fat volumes of case files, with renowned senior advocates stretching their submissions for days without any restrictions or reprimand for repetition of arguments already advanced by other lawyers.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha took up two important cases — the constitutional questions emerging from the split in Shiv Sena resulting in the fall of Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA government in Maharashtra as well as role of the governor during the political imbroglio and the controversy relating to Assam NRC.
In the Maharashtra case, Justice Chandrachud told senior advocates — Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi and Devadatt Kamat (appearing for Thackeray-faction leaders) and Neeraj K Kaul and Maninder Singh — to file soft copies of all documents so as to make the hearing paperless.
The bench told the counsel to file written arguments specifying which senior advocate would argue which aspect of the case or issues arising for consideration of the court. It also asked the counsel to specify the duration of their arguments and ensure that there was no overlapping of submissions.
The bench asked advocates Javedur Rehman and Chirag Shroff, advocates from both sides to prepare a common compilation of case laws that the advocates from opposite parties would be citing. The lawyers sought four weeks to prepare and file their written submissions as well as the common compilation. SC posted the matter for house-keeping purposes on November 29, and if it finds the documents in order, it will fix a date for commencing final hearing.
On Assam NRC, the bench passed an identical order. However, a counsel pointed out that Justice Narasimha had apparently appeared for some party during the earlier hearing which lasted a decade. But counsel from both sides said they have no objection to Justice Narasimha continuing in the bench. Justice Chandrachud said it would be left to Justice Narasimha to take a call on this issue.
Hearings before constitution benches have always been long-drawn involving fat volumes of case files, with renowned senior advocates stretching their submissions for days without any restrictions or reprimand for repetition of arguments already advanced by other lawyers.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha took up two important cases — the constitutional questions emerging from the split in Shiv Sena resulting in the fall of Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA government in Maharashtra as well as role of the governor during the political imbroglio and the controversy relating to Assam NRC.
In the Maharashtra case, Justice Chandrachud told senior advocates — Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi and Devadatt Kamat (appearing for Thackeray-faction leaders) and Neeraj K Kaul and Maninder Singh — to file soft copies of all documents so as to make the hearing paperless.
The bench told the counsel to file written arguments specifying which senior advocate would argue which aspect of the case or issues arising for consideration of the court. It also asked the counsel to specify the duration of their arguments and ensure that there was no overlapping of submissions.
The bench asked advocates Javedur Rehman and Chirag Shroff, advocates from both sides to prepare a common compilation of case laws that the advocates from opposite parties would be citing. The lawyers sought four weeks to prepare and file their written submissions as well as the common compilation. SC posted the matter for house-keeping purposes on November 29, and if it finds the documents in order, it will fix a date for commencing final hearing.
On Assam NRC, the bench passed an identical order. However, a counsel pointed out that Justice Narasimha had apparently appeared for some party during the earlier hearing which lasted a decade. But counsel from both sides said they have no objection to Justice Narasimha continuing in the bench. Justice Chandrachud said it would be left to Justice Narasimha to take a call on this issue.