Mapping Judicial Time: A Two-by-Two Framework for Categorising Listings

/
Articles and Blogposts /
Mapping Judicial Time: A Two-by-Two Framework for Categorising Listings

Summary –

In this blog post, Gokul Krishnan R proposes a novel two-by-two framework for categorising case listings in Indian trial courts. The framework classifies listings based on their nature (procedural or substantive) and their effectiveness in advancing cases toward resolution. This approach provides a nuanced understanding of judicial time utilisation, moving beyond traditional definitions of “effective hearing”.

I. Introduction

In an ideal world, courts would use their judicial time to progress the cases before them toward disposal. However, it is no secret that a significant amount of judicial time is consumed in Indian courts by administrative/procedural work, which is ancillary to the actual adjudication. Additionally, many cases listed are adjourned on the lawyers’ insistence, or because the judge does not have sufficient time to deal with the case that day. A time and motion study done by DAKSH in certain trial courts in Karnataka found that 54% of the sitting time of civil courts and 33% of that of criminal courts is spent on handling adjournments. Thus, the judicial time spent on adjudicating a case is often limited. However, it would be reductionist to claim that judicial time spent on administrative/procedural work is irrelevant to effective case adjudication, as efficiency and accuracy of administrative and procedural tasks often lay the groundwork for the substantive resolution of cases. Therefore, a nuanced understanding of how courts allocate and utilise their time is essential, as it can help improve court efficiency by identifying bottlenecks in different types of cases, enabling better scheduling, and aiding in the analysis of judicial performance

This article proposes a framework for categorising case listings based on their effectiveness in advancing cases toward resolution and the nature of the proceeding (i.e., procedural or substantive). This framework can provide a nuanced understanding of how judicial time is utilised. However, as it is based on proceedings in the trial courts, it will need to be modified when applied to the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

II. Effectiveness of a listing

Hearings are proceedings where a case is brought before a judge for consideration. However, not all listings or listings of a case are for hearings, even though the term ‘hearing’ is often used interchangeably to refer to all listings. The Supreme Court, in Sham Lal (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha, Dal Bazar (AIR 1987 SC 197), clarified that a hearing commences only after a written statement is filed and issues are framed. Despite this distinction, the term “hearing” continues to be widely used in studies on judicial time management and in the context of lawyer invoicing to encompass all case listings.

In India, the term “effective hearing” is loosely used, particularly in the context of lawyer invoicing, to refer to hearings where substantial work is performed by the advocates. Such hearings are often billed at a higher rate. The Ministry of Law and Justice’s office memorandum on fees payable to its counsels defines an effective hearing as one in which one or more parties involved in the matter are heard by the court. A Delhi Development Authority office memo in the context of fees to be paid to counsels also provides a list of hearings that are considered ineffective. The memo states that adjournments due to any reason (e.g., at the request of parties, due to the presiding officer’s leave, or if the case is not reached for hearing), listing for pronouncing judgments, or listings where time is sought to file counter affidavits or replies will be classified as non-effective hearings. Thus, these memorandums, being drafted specifically for disbursing fees to counsels, classify a hearing as effective only if the lawyers have undertaken substantial work.

A study on substantive and non-substantive hearings in Indian Courts by Manivannan, Karthik Suresh, and Susan Thomas et al. labels listings based on the application of the judicial mind to a dispute. They define substantive hearings as those where the court actively applies its mind to resolving the dispute. Hearings that involve procedural directions, such as filing pleadings or recording them, are categorised as non-substantive, as they do not substantially impact dispute resolution. Their definition of a substantial hearing hinges on whether the court applies its mind to resolve the dispute at hand.

III. An alternate framework

This article builds on the previous literature and proposes an alternate two-by-two framework to categorise listings based on:

Nature of listing: Whether the listing was for a procedural or a substantive step, and
Effectiveness of listing: Whether the listing effectively advanced the case towards disposal.

The listings can be classified as either procedural or substantive based on the nature of the listing. Similarly, it can be categorised as effective or non-effective based on whether the outcome of the listing can advance the case toward disposal.

A listing is categorised as procedural or substantive based on the purpose of the listing. The outcome of the listing does not affect this categorisation. However, a listing in a case is categorised as effective or non-effective based on its outcome, i.e., whether the outcome of the listing can progress the case toward disposal. It is not necessary for the outcome of a listing to fulfil the purpose of the listing to be categorised as an effective listing. For example, if a case is listed for the petitioner to pay the balance court fees (a procedural listing), but during the listing, the petitioner does not pay the fees. However, the parties submit to the court that there is a chance of settlement, and the court records this and adjourns the case. Thus, this listing will be categorised as a Procedural Effective listing even though the outcome of the listing has not served the purpose of the listing.

The table below provides examples of listings and how they will be labelled according to this framework.

Type	Effective	Non-Effective
Procedural	A case is listed for framing of charges, and charges are framed in the hearing. A case is listed for the appearance of the accused/parties, and the accused/parties are present before the court. A case is listed for filing a written statement, and a written statement has been filed on or before the date of listing. A case is listed for steps, and steps have been taken by the advocate. A case is listed for paying the balance court fees which has been paid. A case is listed for the return of notice, and the notices have been duly served. A case is listed for reports, and the report has been filed. A case is listed for pre-trial steps, and the pre-trial steps have been taken. A case is listed for the report of the advocate commissioner and the report has been filed. A case is listed for a repeating summons to the accused/witness, and the summons is repeated. A case is listed for judgment or interim order, and the judgment/interim order is delivered on that day. A case is listed for the FSL report, and the court receives the FSL report. A case is listed for steps, and the court refers the parties to mediation as the parties express that there is a chance for a settlement. A case is listed for hearing of the interlocutory application, and the interlocutory application is heard.	A case is listed for framing charges, and the court adjourns the hearing without framing charges. A case is listed for the appearance of the accused/parties, and the accused/parties are not present before the court. A case is listed for filing a written statement, and a written statement has not been filed on the date of listing. A case is listed for steps, and steps have not been taken by the party. A case is listed for the payment of balance court fees which have not been paid. The case is listed for the return of notice, but the notice has not been served on the party for any reason, and the party has not appeared in the case, either through an advocate or in person. A case is listed for the report of the commissioner and the report has not been filed. A case is listed for judgment or interim order and the judgment/interim order is not delivered on that day A case is listed for the FSL report, and the court does not receive the FSL report.
Substantive	A case is listed for the FSL report, and the court does not receive the FSL report. A case is listed for evidence, and the witness is present for evidence. A case is listed for admission, and the case is taken up, and arguments are heard on the issue of admission. A case is listed for pre-summoning of evidence, and the complainant is heard by the courts on his evidence against the accused. A case is listed for hearing/ final hearing and the arguments of parties/parties are heard by the court	A case is listed for hearing but is adjourned due to a stay from a higher court. A case is listed for evidence, and the case is adjourned because the witness is not present or for any other reason. A case is listed for admission, and the case is adjourned for any reason. A case is listed for hearing/final hearing, and the case is adjourned for any reason.

IV. Conclusion

While this classification framework may initially appear to be an academic exercise, it has practical applications in improving case management and judicial efficiency.

By identifying and prioritising substantive and effective hearings, courts can optimise scheduling and resource allocation. Procedural hearings could potentially be delegated to administrative judges or court officials, freeing judges to focus on substantive matters. The categorisation of effective and non-effective hearings can also serve as a tool for measuring judicial productivity and understanding how judicial time is utilised. However, certain hearings may resist easy categorisation. For example, parties cannot ask to file additional documents and rejoinders as a right. Moreover, it is difficult to say if such filings progress the case toward disposal. A listing in which a court permits such a filing defies an easy classification.

Despite these challenges, the proposed framework offers a structured approach to analysing court proceedings and provides a foundation for further research and reforms to enhance judicial efficiency.