Seat of Supreme Court for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage and answer the question.
The pandemic had turned the world on its head. No aspect of life has escaped unscathed. This includes the functioning of courts and tribunals. The judiciary has limited its work to hearing urgent matters via video conferencing. A lot has been written about how this is an opportunity to improve the IT infrastructure of courts so that they can move to video conference hearings as the norm. However, any such move without first revamping procedural law would be futile. In subordinate civil courts and High Courts, a significant time of daily proceedings is taken up by cases where only adjournments are sought for procedural matters like filling of replies. Both as a response to this crisis, as well as in the medium term, this system needs to be devised where cases are not listed before the court unless all the documents are filed within strict timelines and every procedural requirement compiled. The existing infrastructure is enough to enable this. Listing can be done before the court only in cases requiring urgent interim intervention from the court, while the matter is pending procedural completion, after verification of urgency by a judicial officer or a judge upon oral or written application. When courts reopen, apart from fresh cases, only a limited number of cases (say-20-30 a day) which are ripe for arguments can be posted. This can be done with sufficient notice to the Bar Associations that requests for adjournments will be looked at askance. This will ensure that courtrooms are not crowded. Circulations of the cases to be listed in advance (say, two weeks before listing) will give advocates enough time to take instructions from clients and prepare for arguments. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 should amend provisions pertaining to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). Article 136 of the Constitution enables people to file a petition seeking leave to appeal a decision of any judicial or quasi-judicial authority. The Supreme Court grants leave to appeal if the petition raises a question of law of general public importance, or if the judgement appealed against is especially perverse, which would require interference from the Court. The provision has been abused over the years to only clog the docket of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was never intended to be a court of appeal, barring such appeals which specific statutes provide for. The High Courts are usually meant to be the final courts of appeal. Instead, SLPs are now being treated as the last round of appeal. Reports show that SLPs comprise about 60-70% of the Supreme Court’s docket. Out of this, 80-90 % of SLPs are dismissed, which means only 10-20% of such cases raise important questions of law. This takes up a lot of time for the Court. A simple solution would be to do away with the immediate oral hearing of SLPs. The Supreme Court Rules could be amended to provide for a structure of pre-hearing of SLPs. Every SLP must be accompanied by an application for oral hearing which must be decided first by the Court, and that too in chambers. To assist the Court in that, a cadre of judicial research assistants made up of qualified lawyers should be created. The research assistants can go through each SLP and cull out the important questions of law as envisioned in Article 136.
Question : 
What procedural remedy according to the author should be done regarding listing the cases so that courtrooms are not crowded?

Read the following passage and answer the question.
The pandemic had turned the world on its head. No aspect of life has escaped unscathed. This includes the functioning of courts and tribunals. The judiciary has limited its work to hearing urgent matters via video conferencing. A lot has been written about how this is an opportunity to improve the IT infrastructure of courts so that they can move to video conference hearings as the norm. However, any such move without first revamping procedural law would be futile. In subordinate civil courts and High Courts, a significant time of daily proceedings is taken up by cases where only adjournments are sought for procedural matters like filling of replies. Both as a response to this crisis, as well as in the medium term, this system needs to be devised where cases are not listed before the court unless all the documents are filed within strict timelines and every procedural requirement compiled. The existing infrastructure is enough to enable this. Listing can be done before the court only in cases requiring urgent interim intervention from the court, while the matter is pending procedural completion, after verification of urgency by a judicial officer or a judge upon oral or written application. When courts reopen, apart from fresh cases, only a limited number of cases (say-20-30 a day) which are ripe for arguments can be posted. This can be done with sufficient notice to the Bar Associations that requests for adjournments will be looked at askance. This will ensure that courtrooms are not crowded. Circulations of the cases to be listed in advance (say, two weeks before listing) will give advocates enough time to take instructions from clients and prepare for arguments. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 should amend provisions pertaining to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). Article 136 of the Constitution enables people to file a petition seeking leave to appeal a decision of any judicial or quasi-judicial authority. The Supreme Court grants leave to appeal if the petition raises a question of law of general public importance, or if the judgement appealed against is especially perverse, which would require interference from the Court. The provision has been abused over the years to only clog the docket of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was never intended to be a court of appeal, barring such appeals which specific statutes provide for. The High Courts are usually meant to be the final courts of appeal. Instead, SLPs are now being treated as the last round of appeal. Reports show that SLPs comprise about 60-70% of the Supreme Court’s docket. Out of this, 80-90 % of SLPs are dismissed, which means only 10-20% of such cases raise important questions of law. This takes up a lot of time for the Court. A simple solution would be to do away with the immediate oral hearing of SLPs. The Supreme Court Rules could be amended to provide for a structure of pre-hearing of SLPs. Every SLP must be accompanied by an application for oral hearing which must be decided first by the Court, and that too in chambers. To assist the Court in that, a cadre of judicial research assistants made up of qualified lawyers should be created. The research assistants can go through each SLP and cull out the important questions of law as envisioned in Article 136.
Question : 
The author cites remedies for delays caused by SLPs in the apex court. Which statement/statements from the passage cite those remedies?