I. A Long-Awaited Course Correction
The Supreme Court of India has recently issued a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) regulating the manner in which oral arguments are to be conducted, including the filing of written submissions in advance and the disclosure of time estimates by counsel.[1] Unsurprisingly, this development has generated considerable discussion within the Bar, with reactions ranging from surprise to optimism to uncertainty to unease.
Yet, seen in historical perspective, the idea that oral arguments is not new. As early as 1984, the Law Commission of India, in its 99th Report titled “Oral and Written Arguments in the Higher Courts”, deliberated on this issue.[2] While the Commission refrained from recommending rigid or mathematically precise time limits, it emphasised that courts could and should obtain advance estimates of time from counsels, fix the duration of arguments beforehand, and insist on adherence to such limits, particularly where written arguments were well prepared. The Commission was explicit that such a practice would “go a long way towards improving the rate of disposal, without seriously impairing the cause of justice.”
The present SOP must therefore be understood as a response to a long-standing structural deficiency in the management of judicial time.
II. Delay as a Structural Condition of the Indian Legal System
Few descriptions capture the lived reality of Indian litigation better than the oft-repeated phrase “tareekh pe tareekh.” Where delay is seen as a structural feature of the system. Despite constitutional status and vast institutional authority, the Supreme Court of India also continues to grapple with chronic pendency, long dates, and an ever-expanding docket.[3]
In such a scenario judicial time is an inherently scarce resource. Yet, paradoxically, the time of the Supreme Court has historically been among the least regulated compared to its global peers. Matters frequently spill over beyond scheduled hearings, leading to cases being marked “part-heard” sometimes for months or even years. When arguments are spread over long intervals, judges are compelled to reconstruct the case afresh, either by re-reading voluminous records or relying on personal notes taken during oral submissions. This inevitably affects both efficiency and decisional continuity.
Compounding this problem is the ad hoc nature of written submissions. While synopses and notes are often filed, their length, timing, and utility vary widely. Till now, written submissions followed oral arguments rather than structuring them. The result is a system where oral advocacy substitutes for, rather than supplements, disciplined written presentation.
III. Comparative Global Practice:
A comparative glance reveals that India is an outlier in the degree of freedom traditionally accorded to oral advocacy.
The most frequently cited example is the Supreme Court of the United States, which hears roughly 60–70 cases per year, a minuscule docket when compared to the Indian Supreme Court. Oral arguments are ordinarily limited to 30 minutes per side, extendable only by leave of the Court. Crucially, oral argument is not permitted unless written briefs have been filed.
Rule 28 of the U.S. Supreme Court Rules[4] encapsulates the philosophy succinctly:
“Oral argument should emphasize and clarify the written arguments in the briefs on the merits. Counsel should assume that all Justices have read the briefs before oral argument. Oral argument read from a prepared text is not favored.”
In other common law jurisdictions such as United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Singapore, oral arguments are similarly structured and rationed. Time estimates are either agreed upon by counsel or fixed by the court, and the number of advocates permitted to address the court is often restricted.
The underlying assumption across these systems is consistent:judicial time must be consciously allocated, and oral argument exists to assist the court and not to provide an unrestricted opportunity to advance endless arguments.
This lesson assumes even greater urgency in India, where the Supreme Court’s docket is exponentially larger and its constitutional responsibilities correspondingly heavier.
IV. Judicial Disquiet Within the Indian Supreme Court
The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly acknowledged that excessive oral arguments are a genuine institutional problem. Perhaps the clearest articulation of this concern appears in the postscript toAjit Mohan v. Legislative Assembly, NCT of Delhi (2022) 3 SCC 529. Prior to the final judgment being delivered, the Hon’ble Court in its interim order dated 24.01.2021 recorded that. “…The marathon of 26 hours ends! The task is now with us to pen down our opinion.”
In a postscript to the final judgment in Ajit Mohan (Supra), the Court recorded, with unusual candour, that the hearing had consumed 26 hours of judicial time, accompanied by “written synopses, additional written synopses, rejoinders and replies filed liberally by both parties,” and “voluminous convenience compilations,” which defeated their very purpose. The Bench expressed serious concern that if such practices continued, it would become “very difficult to deal with the post-COVID period,” which was expected to see a surge in pending cases.
More significantly, the Court questioned whether any judicial forum anywhere in the world would permit such prolonged oral submissions, especially when supplemented by extensive written material. It observed that oral arguments had degenerated into “a competing arena of who gets to argue for the longest time,” and unequivocally stated that restriction of time for oral submissions “must be brought into force.”
The postscript also linked prolonged arguments to unnecessarily long and complex judgments, driven by the perceived need to address every submission and precedent cited. The Bench emphasised that justice suffers not merely from delay in hearings, but also from judgments that become inaccessible to the very litigants they are meant to serve.
V. Empirical Evidence: Time Limits Still Fail
The concern that time limits, even when imposed, are frequently breached is borne out by empirical research.
A 2023 Working Paper by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, titled “Differentiated Case Management for Constitution Bench Cases: Timing Oral Submissions”,[5] analysed several recent Constitution Bench hearings where time restrictions were attempted. Drawing on livestream data, the study demonstrated that advocates routinely exceeded allocated time, leading to hearings extending far beyond their scheduled duration.
For instance, in high-profile matters such as the same-sex marriage case and the Maharashtra Assembly dispute, the Court allocated a finite number of hearings, yet oral arguments overshot these limits by an average of nearly three additional hearings per case. In aggregate, the Court spent over 70 hours of hearing timeon just three Constitution Bench matters amounting to approximately 350 judge-hours when bench strength was accounted for.
The Vidhi report underscores a critical point: informal or ad hoc time control is insufficient. Without institutionalised mechanisms and cultural change within the Bar, judicial exhortations alone cannot curb overlong advocacy.
VI. Conclusion: From Free Rein to Structured Assistance
The Supreme Court’s new SOP reflects a growing institutional recognition that the free rein traditionally enjoyed by advocates in oral argument is no longer sustainable. This is not a repudiation of oral advocacy, which remains central to the common law tradition, but an attempt to redefine its role.
The SOP aligns Indian Supreme Court practice with global judicial norms, where oral arguments are carefully integrated with written submissions and treated as a finite, valuable resource. By emphasising advance preparation, self-regulation by counsel, and structured time management, the Court signals a shift from performative advocacy toward assistance-oriented argumentation.
If implemented consistently, this reform holds the promise of:
(a) reducing part-heard matters,
(b) improving decisional clarity,
(c) and freeing judicial time for cases that truly require extended deliberation.
Ultimately, the success of the SOP will depend not merely on formal compliance, but on whether the legal profession internalises its underlying premise: that the right to be heard does not entail the right to speak without limit, and that justice is served not by the length of arguments, but by their precision.
In that sense, the SOP is best understood not as an administrative inconvenience, but as a necessary step toward reclaiming the Supreme Court’s most precious commodity i.e. time in service of justice itself.
*Anuja Pethia, Managing Partner, Swarnim Legal.
**Noor Shergill, Managing Partner, Swarnim Legal.
[1] Supreme Court of India, Circular on Standard Operating Procedure for Adhering to Timelines for Oral Arguments, F. No. 29/Judl./2025 (Dec. 29, 2025).
[2] Law Comm’n of India, Ninety-Ninth Report on Oral and Written Arguments in the Higher Courts (1984).
[3] Soni Mishra, India’s Judicial System Buckling Under Unprecedented Weight as Supreme Court Grapples with Delay, Frontline (The Hindu) (Oct. __, 2025), https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/india-judicial-delay-supreme-court-police-judges/article70185758.ece.
[4]Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (adopted Dec. 5, 2022, eff. Jan. 1, 2023), available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/2023RulesoftheCourt.pdf
[5] Jyotika Randhawa & Deepika Kinhal, Differentiated Case Management for the Indian Judiciary: Working Paper II—Timing Oral Submissions: A Way Forward (Vidhi Ctr. for Legal Policy Aug. 2023).