Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Monday unveiled a significant procedural overhaul at the Supreme Court, signalling a decisive shift in how the country’s highest court manages its time, hears cases, and prioritises litigants. Through two administrative circulars issued on December 30, the apex court formally operationalised reforms aimed at reducing delays, bringing predictability to hearings, and ensuring that the justice system better serves ordinary citizens and vulnerable groups.

The changes mark the most concrete step so far in CJI Kant’s reform agenda since he assumed office on November 24. Soon after taking charge, he had publicly emphasised the need to rationalise court functioning, curb protracted hearings, and reorient judicial processes towards efficiency without compromising fairness. The two circulars—one dealing with oral arguments and the other with listing priorities—translate those intentions into binding institutional practice.

Mandatory timelines for oral arguments

The first circular introduces a structured and time-bound framework for oral arguments, a move likely to fundamentally alter courtroom culture at the Supreme Court. For the first time, all lawyers, including senior advocates, will be required to adhere to prefixed and strictly enforced timelines while arguing cases.

The circular states that the reform is intended “to facilitate effective court management and equitable distribution of court working hours and to ensure speedy and proper administration of justice”. The new standard operating procedure (SoP) applies with immediate effect to all post-notice matters and regular hearings.

Under the revised system, senior advocates, arguing counsel and advocates-on-record must submit proposed timelines for their oral submissions at least one day before the scheduled hearing. These timelines must be uploaded through the existing online portal used for filing appearance slips. This requirement is aimed at enabling benches to anticipate how much court time a matter is likely to consume and to plan the day’s board more effectively.

In addition, counsel must file a concise written submission or brief note, not exceeding five pages, at least three days before the hearing. A copy of this note must be served on the opposing side. The purpose, according to the circular, is to allow judges to familiarise themselves with the core issues in advance and to ensure that oral arguments remain focused and within the allotted time.

The circular leaves little ambiguity about compliance. “All counsel shall strictly adhere to the timelines fixed and conclude their oral arguments,” it states, underlining the court’s intent to move away from open-ended hearings that often stretch across multiple days and crowd out other matters.

Legal observers say the move addresses a long-standing criticism of Supreme Court practice, where complex cases—often involving senior advocates—can dominate judicial time, leaving little room for smaller matters and first-time litigants. People familiar with the reform told Hindustan Times that the new framework is designed to ensure that no single case disproportionately consumes court hours at the cost of others, while also bringing predictability to hearings.

Restructuring listing priorities on miscellaneous days

The second administrative circular focuses on how matters are listed on miscellaneous days, when a large number of cases seek urgent or preliminary hearings. The Supreme Court has now restructured the causelist order and introduced new priority categories that explicitly favour vulnerable sections of society.

Under the revised listing framework, matters will be taken up in a defined sequence. Early hearing applications, fresh matters and bail cases will continue to be heard first, followed by post-notice interim matters, settlement cases and matters involving personal appearances.

What marks a significant shift, however, is the introduction of four new priority heads that have been placed ahead of several traditionally prominent categories such as transfer petitions, public interest litigations, orders and part-heard matters. The new priority categories are:

• Cases relating to specially-abled persons and acid attack victims
• Cases involving senior citizens above the age of 80
• Cases concerning persons below the poverty line
• Legal aid matters

By elevating these categories in the listing order, the court has sent a clear signal that cases involving heightened vulnerability deserve faster judicial attention. The reform institutionalises what has often been left to the discretion of individual benches or ad hoc interventions.

To ensure effective implementation, the Supreme Court has directed members of the Bar, parties-in-person and other stakeholders to clearly mention the applicable priority category while filing fresh petitions. Supporting documentary proof issued by an appropriate government authority must also be submitted. In pending matters, similar details are to be furnished so that the registry can update its records and prioritise listings accordingly.

“This will enable the registry to prioritise listing of such cases,” the circular states, reflecting an effort to replace informal prioritisation with a transparent and structured system.

Aligning practice with stated reform goals

The circulars align closely with CJI Kant’s publicly stated vision for judicial reform. Earlier this month, he had declared that introducing predictable timelines for case disposal and working towards a unified national judicial policy would be his foremost priorities as Chief Justice.

Speaking at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit 2025 on December 6, his first major public address after assuming office, CJI Kant had described judicial reform as essential to restoring public confidence in the justice system. “My first priority will be a predictable timeline and a unified national judicial policy for early decisions of the pending cases,” he said, stressing that mounting pendency, particularly of older cases, required urgent and systemic attention.

The new rules on oral arguments directly respond to concerns that judicial time is often consumed inefficiently, while the revised listing priorities reflect his emphasis on making justice more accessible and responsive to those who need it most.

Addressing the scale of pendency

The urgency behind these reforms is underscored by the staggering volume of pending cases across India’s courts. According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), more than 48 million cases are pending before district courts nationwide. High courts are burdened with over 6.3 million cases, while the Supreme Court alone is grappling with a backlog exceeding 91,000 matters.

While the Supreme Court hears only a fraction of the total cases in the system, its practices have a cascading influence on lower courts. Legal experts say that institutional discipline in managing time and prioritising cases at the apex level could set a precedent for similar reforms across the judiciary.

Implications for the Bar and litigants

For the legal profession, the changes represent a cultural shift. Seniority and reputation will no longer shield advocates from time limits, and preparation will increasingly move towards concise written submissions supplemented by focused oral arguments. For litigants, particularly those from marginalised or vulnerable backgrounds, the revised listing priorities promise faster access to the court’s attention.

Taken together, the two circulars signal a conscious attempt by CJI Surya Kant to recalibrate the Supreme Court’s functioning—away from ad hoc practices and towards a more predictable, equitable and citizen-centric model of justice delivery. Whether the reforms achieve their intended impact will depend on consistent enforcement and cooperation from the Bar, but they mark a decisive institutional reset at the very top of India’s judicial system.