In a move aimed at tackling persistent delays in case listings, the Supreme Court has directed its Registry to consider the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association’s (SCAORA) proposal for regular Open House sessions. These sessions would serve as a forum for discussions between legal practitioners and court officials, fostering greater transparency in the verification and listing of newly filed cases.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih underscored the need for clarity in procedural guidelines while addressing broader concerns regarding the appointment process for Senior Advocates.
SCAORA argued that the absence of a structured handbook on case verification procedures has led to inconsistencies, with the Registry frequently altering its norms without prior notice. Such unpredictability, the Association contended, has resulted in significant delays, rendering some matters infructuous before they even reach the court.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the merit of SCAORA’s concerns, stating that Open House discussions could encourage constructive engagement between the legal community and Registry officials, ultimately streamlining the filing and verification process. It directed the Registrar (Judicial) to forward a copy of the order and SCAORA’s written submissions to the Secretary-General for necessary action.
Additionally, SCAORA raised issues surrounding the sequencing system that determines the order of case hearings, arguing that it has disrupted the workflow for Advocates-on-Record. Limited time for preparation, compounded by inadequate internet services within the court complex, has made case management increasingly challenging. The Association suggested scrapping the sequencing system to restore efficiency.
The discussion also extended to concerns over the code of conduct for Advocates-on-Record and the process for Senior Advocate designations. These issues arose in a case involving allegations of false statements and suppression of material facts by a Senior Advocate in multiple remission pleas.
The Supreme Court’s directive signals a step toward improving court efficiency, ensuring that procedural bottlenecks do not hinder access to justice.