New Delhi: A woman from Hyderabad, appearing before the Supreme Court in person, made an emotional plea to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Monday, July 13, telling the bench that 15 years of pendency in her case had left her family unable to afford food or education for her children.
Video of the exchange, in which the woman is seen removing her jewellery as she spoke, went viral on social media.
Appearing without a lawyer, the woman told the bench, “Milord, milord, I am from Hyderabad… for 15 years, we have not been living a life. Our lives have been ruined. Our entire families have been destroyed. We are making this request together, milord.”
CJI Kant initially told her the matter would be listed for hearing the following Monday before a special bench, and suggested she need not travel to appear in person. “You can attend online and you will be heard for as long as you wish,” he said, adding that she should not spend money on travelling.
The woman, however, persisted, telling the court that her family’s distress ran too deep to be conveyed online. “Humare bachchon ko khana tak nahin de paa rahe hain, education nahin de paa rahe hain (I am unable to feed my family or pay for their education),” she said, before invoking the mangalsutra – the sacred marital necklace worn by married Hindu women – telling the bench nothing was left around her neck, in an apparent gesture of desperation as she appeared to remove her jewellery before the court.
Case listed before special bench
CJI Kant reassured her that her matter would be taken up by a special bench the following week and listed “on top of the board,” ensuring she would get a hearing. The specific nature of the underlying case was not disclosed during the brief exchange.
The moment comes days after the CJI constituted four special division benches to exclusively hear the Supreme Court’s oldest pending civil and criminal matters, an administrative reform aimed at clearing nearly 800 long-pending cases through structured docket management. It could not be ascertained whether the woman’s case falls under this newly created roster, though the 15-year timeline she cited matches the profile of matters the reform is intended to address.
| | 
