Time is a fundamental aspect of justice. The efficiency of the justice system dep ends no t only on accurate judgments but also on how courts utilise their time. The Indian judiciary is currently confronted with a dilemma: despite apparent advancements in technology, public confidence, and constitutional authority, there are still considerable delays in the administration of justice, despite the bench and bar’s earnest efforts.

The absence of a systematic and predictable time management system during court proceedings is a crucial issue that is often disregarded, despite the fact that problems like procedural delays, mounting caseloads, and vacancies receive a lot of attention and may be resolved. What is the cost of unmanaged time? As of date, over 93,000 matters are pending before the Supreme Court of India. Despite the Court functioning at or near full strength in recent years, pendency has remained at record levels. The reason is not simply a shortage of judges; it is, in part, a shortage of discipline in how hearing time is allocated and consumed.

Any practitioner who regularly appears before the Supreme Court will recognise the problem: waiting hours for a matter to be called, only to watch a handful of cases absorb disproportionate court time through repetitive submissions and extended arguments. Such prolonged hearings carry compounding costs. They crowd out matters of genuine constitutional significance, produce verbose judgments burdened by redundant precedent, and deny access to justice to those whose cases never receive adequate attention. The right to a speedy trial in India is not a procedural luxury; it is a constitutional guarantee. The Supreme Court, in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016), has itself recognised that access to justice and timely justice are inseparable dimensions of Article 21.

If the Court takes this principle seriously externally, it........

© The Statesman