Case listing is the backbone of judicial administration in India. It determines when, before whom, and in what order cases are heard by judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. In a judicial system burdened with over 53 million pending cases across all levels, the listing process plays a decisive role in either advancing or delaying justice. More than a procedural formality, listing directly affects the constitutional guarantee of speedy justice under Article 21.
Over the years, India’s courts have witnessed significant changes in listing practices, particularly with the introduction of e-filing, digital cause lists, automated allocation tools, and attempts to curb informal influence through mentioning. Yet, despite these reforms, listing remains one of the most opaque, discretionary, and contested aspects of court administration.
This article provides a comprehensive and critical examination of the case listing process in Indian High Courts and the Supreme Court, tracing the journey from filing to hearing, analysing priority and urgency mechanisms, examining recent reforms, and evaluating whether these measures meaningfully address the deeper structural crisis of judicial delay.
- Filing and Registration of Cases
The lifecycle of case listing begins with filing. Litigants or their advocates submit petitions, appeals, or applications to the court registry. In the Supreme Court, filing must be done through an Advocate-on-Record (AoR), while High Courts allow filing through enrolled advocates or litigants-in-person.
Filing Methods
- Traditional Filing: Physical submission at the court registry.
- Modern Practice: E-filing is now mandatory or strongly encouraged in most courts. The Supreme Court operates the SC-eFM portal, enabling electronic submission of pleadings, annexures, court fees, and vakalatnamas. High Courts operate parallel systems under the supervision of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court.
Registration Process
- On filing, a diary number (provisional) is assigned.
- The registry scrutinizes the filing for defects, such as missing documents, improper formatting, or insufficient court fees.
- In the Supreme Court, defects must generally be cured within 28 days, failing which the matter may be listed in the defective or elimination list.
- Upon compliance, the case is registered, assigned a permanent number, and classified (civil appeal, SLP, writ petition, criminal matter, PIL, etc.).
Impact of Digitalisation
Digital tools have:
- Reduced paperwork,
- Enabled quicker communication of defects,
- Improved transparency in tracking case status.
However, digital access remains uneven, particularly for rural litigants and smaller bar associations.
- Allocation to Benches: The Roster System
Once registered, a case is assigned to a judge or bench through the roster system, which lies at the heart of judicial administration.
Supreme Court
In the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) prepares and approves the roster. Matters are often allocated subject-wise:
- PILs and constitutionally significant matters to senior benches,
- Criminal and service matters to other benches,
- Constitution Bench matters separately constituted.
This system is justified on grounds of expertise and efficiency, but it has also been criticised for concentrating immense administrative power in the office of the CJI, reinforcing the idea of the CJI as the “Master of the Roster”.
High Courts
High Court Chief Justices similarly allocate work among:
- Single judges,
- Division benches,
- Full benches,
often based on subject specialisation (criminal, tax, labour, constitutional).
Structural Issues
While rosters aim at specialization, they often result in:
- Uneven workload distribution,
- Long delays for non-priority matters,
- Perceptions of bench-shopping or favouritism in sensitive cases.
- Listing and Scheduling: Cause Lists
Once allocated, cases are scheduled through cause lists, which inform litigants and lawyers when matters will be heard.
Types of Cause Lists
- Daily Cause List: Matters listed for the next working day.
- Advance List: Matters scheduled weeks in advance.
- Miscellaneous List: Fresh matters and interim applications.
- Registrar’s List: Procedural or chamber matters.
- Defective / Elimination List: Matters with unresolved defects or deemed disposed.
Cause lists are published on sci.gov.in for the Supreme Court and respective High Court portals, usually by evening.
Factors Governing Listing
- Judicial availability,
- Case category (fresh, regular, part-heard),
- Urgency and previous orders,
- Overall backlog.
Despite digital publication, predictability remains limited, especially for regular civil and constitutional matters.
- Expedited Listing: Priority and Urgency Mechanisms
Given the overwhelming backlog, courts operate a hierarchy of priority.
Automatic Priority Matters
- Personal liberty cases (bail, anticipatory bail, habeas corpus),
- Immediate interim relief matters (eviction, demolition),
- Certain PILs and economically significant cases.
Urgent Listing Procedures
Other urgent matters require:
- Written urgency letters or standardized proformas,
- Submission to designated Mentioning Officers or registrars.
Courts have increasingly sought to reduce oral discretion in urgency listing to enhance fairness and consistency.
- Mentioning for Urgent Listing: From Tradition to Reform
Traditional Mentioning
Mentioning historically allowed lawyers to orally request early listing by briefly explaining urgency before:
- The CJI in the Supreme Court,
- Designated benches in High Courts.
Criticisms
- Favoured senior, well-connected lawyers,
- Encouraged informal lobbying,
- Created a two-tier justice system.
Contemporary Reforms
Recent procedural shifts emphasize:
- Written urgency proformas,
- Reduced or abolished oral mentioning,
- Restrictions on senior advocates personally mentioning matters,
- Stricter adjournment norms requiring disclosure of past adjournments.
Many High Courts now use online mentioning portals, though implementation varies widely across states.
- Court Hearings and Subsequent Listings
On the listed date:
- Arguments are heard,
- Interim or final orders are passed,
- Matters may be adjourned or reserved for judgment.
Part-heard matters receive priority to avoid rehearing before new benches. Adjournments are increasingly discouraged, though delays persist in practice.
- Challenges and Ongoing Reforms
Persistent Challenges
- Enormous backlog,
- Judicial vacancies,
- Discretionary delays,
- Unequal access for junior lawyers and litigants-in-person.
Reform Initiatives
- E-filing and digital cause lists,
- Automated prioritisation for liberty matters,
- E-Committee driven transparency initiatives.
While positive, these reforms address procedural efficiency, not structural capacity.
Critical Analysis
As of late 2025, India’s judiciary faces over 53 million pending cases, with the Supreme Court alone carrying approximately 80,000–90,000 matters, and subordinate courts bearing the heaviest burden. New filings often outpace disposals, resulting in a clearance ratio hovering around 100%, insufficient to meaningfully reduce backlog.
A striking feature is that over 60–65% of Supreme Court matters remain at the admission stage, choking the docket before substantive hearings even begin. Listing reforms that accelerate urgent matters therefore operate within an already saturated system.
Recent reforms—such as automatic listing for liberty-related cases, curbs on oral mentioning, and structured urgency mechanisms—are commendable for advancing Article 21 values and reducing informal influence. However, they remain incremental and reactive, addressing symptoms rather than root causes.
The deeper crisis lies in:
- Chronic judicial vacancies (India has ~15 judges per million population),
- Inadequate infrastructure,
- Over-centralised roster control,
- Absence of differentiated case management.
Selective prioritisation also fuels perceptions of elite capture, where high-profile or politically sensitive matters move swiftly while ordinary civil disputes languish for decades. Over 180,000 cases pending for more than 30 years starkly illustrate this systemic failure.
True reform requires:
- Massive judicial recruitment,
- Technology-driven differentiated listing,
- Mandatory time-bound disposals,
- Greater collegiality and transparency in roster allocation.
Conclusion
As India enters 2026, the Supreme Court and High Courts remain both guardians of constitutional promise and victims of systemic overload. The listing process—modernised, digitised, and partially reformed—continues to ration justice through urgency classifications.
Recent reforms mark progress, especially for liberty-related cases, but they cannot compensate for chronic capacity deficits. Until structural issues are addressed, listing will remain a powerful yet constrained gatekeeper of justice.
The challenge ahead is not merely administrative efficiency but institutional courage—to expand capacity, democratise access, and ensure that justice is not swift only for the urgent, but timely for all.
