Time limit on arguments

Oral arguments are an established part of our legal system, indeed the essence of advocacy. The fate of many a case has depended on the stre...

Oral arguments are an established part of our legal system, indeed the essence of advocacy. The fate of many a case has depended on the strength of oral advocacy. We inherited this feature from the British. In British courts, written submissions are now filed in the form of skeletal arguments in the opening or to crystallise and supplement the oral arguments. The US Supreme Court allocates time to lawyers depending on the nature of the matter. A red light comes up after the allotted time and that is the end of the case.

In our courts, oral arguments tend to be repetitive and unending, which causes considerable delay in disposal of cases apart from burdening litigants with costs. Should there be a time limit on oral arguments? In the draft Constitution, there was a proposal for time limit on arguments, but that was not accepted by the Founding Fathers. However the need for curtailment of oral arguments has been expressed from time to time. Late Chief Justice Shiv Dayal, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in his response to the farewell given to him by the Gwalior Bar on his retirement said in 1978: ‘‘From my experience of 20 years at the Bar and over 19 years on the Bench, I can say with all emphasis at my command that it has become absolutely necessary to curtail the hearing time.’’

Our Supreme Court in 1978 framed a rule that permits the Court after enquiring from the counsel of each party to fix a time for arguments of both sides. The rule permits supplementing oral arguments with written submissions but states that the time fixed will not be allowed to be exceeded. Renowned Jurist H M Seervai opposed this rule inter alia on the ground that time allotted to counsel is consumed by ceaseless interruptions by judges in the course of arguments and also by improper control exercised by judges regarding citation of cases. Justices Mack and Somasundaram of the Madras High Court struck the same note in 1951.

Story continues below this ad

Their lament was that ‘‘a great deal of Court time is often wasted in unnecessary citations of really irrelevant case law and on an insistence sometimes of reading out in extenso decisions which after perusal are easily differentiated from the facts of the case under decision’’.

Lawyers no doubt are to be blamed. But why don’t judges firmly regulate proceedings in their courts and enforce time limits on counsel’s arguments? Is it because judges are weak or are they anxious not to be unpopular? There is a recent instance in the Supreme Court where counsel opening an appeal cited about 34 decisions. In reply, which is meant to answer only the authorities cited by the other side, additional 28 decisions were cited. The judges were too kind-hearted and permitted this diarrhoea of case law, not realising that their kindness adds to the cost of litigation.

In the paramount interest of expeditious and inexpensive administration of justice, lawyers should cooperate with the Bench in complying with agreed time limits. Surely that is not asking too much.

Embarrassments: We all have had our share of embarrassing situations. The usual one is not remembering the name of the individual who heartily greets you and is anxious to be introduced to your friends. Discomfiture was acute when at a dinner party I asked a person, who I took to be an invitee, whether we had met before, to be brusquely told, ‘‘I am Mr Balram, your host.’’

Story continues below this ad

A particularly embarrassing moment was years ago at Lake Como in Italy. I noticed some Italians looking in my direction and laughing away. I am not a regular smoker and at first I attributed their merriment to my amateurish way of holding a cigarette in my hand. A few seconds later I realised that their amusement was because my lit cigarette was touching the bottom of an Italian lady bending down to fix the diaper of her child. Before the lady could howl, I snuffed out my cigarette and did a mighty sprint.

The climax was in Stockholm. After checking out from the hotel, the luggage was deposited in a counter in the lobby. Before leaving for the airport, I made a quick visit to the toilet and later to my horror, the zip of my trousers failed to function. In desperation I took off my jacket, put it around me, darted out in that condition, and called out to my wife to remove from the luggage bag another pair of trousers and bring it to the gent’s toilet. Understandably we received frowns and giggles from the hotel staff and the guests. Mercifully, we caught the flight in the nick of time for Kiruna and saw the midnight sun that never sets. Never depend on zips.