In a significant move to streamline how the most pressing legal issues reach the bench, the Supreme Court of India has issued a new procedural directive. The court has clarified that all “exceptionally urgent matters” must be mentioned exclusively before the Chief Justice of India (CJI), even when he is presiding over a Constitution Bench.
The directive, issued via a circular on April 6, marks a departure from the long-standing practice where urgent matters were often mentioned before the senior-most judge of the apex court in the event the CJI was unavailable or occupied with a multi-judge Constitution Bench.
Exclusive Jurisdiction of Court No. 1
According to the new rules, the flexibility previously afforded to litigants to approach other senior judges during the CJI’s involvement in special benches has been rescinded for cases of extreme urgency.
The circular stated: “Mentioning of exceptionally urgent matters, which cannot await listing before the Hon’ble Court as per circular dated November 29, 2025, is permitted before Court No. 1, even when the Hon’ble Chief Justice is presiding over a Constitution Bench.”
Critically, the Supreme Court emphasized that this privilege is now strictly centralized, noting that the mentioning of such high-priority matters “is not permitted before any other bench.”
Shift in Protocol
Prior to this notification, the standard operating procedure allowed for the senior-most judge (the ‘number two’ judge in the hierarchy) to handle mentions if the CJI was tied up. This was designed to ensure that emergency stays or time-sensitive legal reliefs were not delayed by the lengthy proceedings of Constitution Benches, which often run for the entire duration of a court day.
By mandating that these matters go through “Court No. 1” (the CJI’s court), the administration appears to be reinforcing the CJI’s role as the ‘Master of the Roster,’ ensuring a singular point of contact for the most critical judicial interventions.
This update follows a previous circular dated November 29, 2025, which laid out general listing processes. The April 6 directive serves as a specific carve-out for matters that are so time-sensitive they cannot follow the standard digital or physical listing queue.
The Supreme Court Registry has not provided further details on the specific types of cases that qualify as “exceptionally urgent,” leaving the determination to the discretion of the CJI when counsel appears for mentioning.
