Justice SK Kaul Stresses On Need To Set Time Limit For Arguments, Cites Example Of US Supreme Court
While hearing an issue related to retrospective application of immunity against arrest, sitting in a Constitution Bench, Supreme Court Judge, Sanjay Kishan Kaul impressed upon the Counsels, representing the parties, the importance of assigning time-limits and abiding by it while making submissions. Hearing the matter preliminarily, the Constitution Bench led by Justice Kaul asked...
While hearing an issue related to retrospective application of immunity against arrest, sitting in a Constitution Bench, Supreme Court Judge, Sanjay Kishan Kaul impressed upon the Counsels, representing the parties, the importance of assigning time-limits and abiding by it while making submissions.
Hearing the matter preliminarily, the Constitution Bench led by Justice Kaul asked the Counsels how long they would take to make their submissions. While the concerned Counsels, including the Solicitor General agreed to complete their arguments in two half day sessions (2 hours each), another Counsel sought two more hours, stating that he has some in-depth research on the issue at hand.
Justice Kaul remarked -
"No system permits everybody to argue for 2 hours."
He referred to the strict practice of allocation of time followed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America while hearing arguments.
"The US Supreme Court gives half an hour to present at the Highest level."
He added -
"We don't follow that practice does not mean we will listen for days together."
Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta stated that while hearing the dispute in the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, the SCOTUS had allocated 45 minutes to each side.
"The dispute regarding President Al Gore, both sides were given 45 limits each."
It appears the arguments had spilled over beyond the time limit. The Solicitor General stated that, nonetheless, even in an election dispute of such magnitude the Court had initially imposed a time-limit on arguments.
"But they were initially given 45 mins."
Justice Kaul said that before the SCOTUS, even to complete a sentence beyond the prescribed time-limit, Counsels are to seek permission, whereas the Counsels appearing before the Supreme Court of India can keep arguing indefinitely.
"I am given to understand that you have to seek permission to complete even a sentence after your time period elapses. Here our sentences spill over to paragraphs, paragraphs to books and it goes on."
Even with respect to filling synopsis, he told the Counsels to file a brief one, highlighting the relevant arguments in the matter.
It may be noted that a Bench headed by Justice Kaul in its judgement in the Facebook-Delhi Assembly case had emphasised the need to restrict the time period for oral submissions by lawyers and to have 'more crisp, clear and precise' judgments which litigants can understand.
Justice Kaul had also set the time-limit for arguments in the Yatin Oza contempt case.