The Delhi High Court has sharply criticised the rising ‘culture of adjournments’, warning that cases are being delayed because adjournments are sought and granted “at the drop of a hat.” The Court urged greater responsibility from counsel to curb pendency.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has criticised a widespread “culture of adjournments” in Indian courts, observing that routine, unjustified delays are obstructing the timely progress of cases. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the remarks while hearing a plea seeking the waiver of a ₹20,000 cost imposed on a litigant for repeatedly seeking adjournments in a matter pending since 2021.
During the hearing, the Court noted that requests to postpone cases, often made without adequate notice or genuine reasons, had become far too common. Justice Krishna stated:
“Unfortunately there is a culture of adjournments that developed over a period of time in courts, whatever may be the matter, adjournment shall be granted at the drop of the hat.”
The judge highlighted that such habitual delays contribute significantly to judicial pendency and disrupt the efficiency of court proceedings.
The petitioner’s counsel sought relief from the imposed cost, claiming that her earlier absences were due to personal difficulty. However, the Court found this explanation inconsistent with the record, which indicated that she had been occupied with another professional matter on at least one of those dates.
Justice Krishna pointed out that professional conflicts cannot be labelled as personal hardship to justify non-appearance. The counsel also submitted that she was a single parent, but the Court held that such circumstances did not justify repeated delays in a long-pending matter.
The Court emphasised that unnecessary adjournments directly affect case timelines and contribute to mounting court backlogs. Justice Krishna observed that counsel must refrain from presenting professional commitments as personal challenges, remarking that such misrepresentations are unacceptable.
Despite criticising the conduct, the Court agreed to waive the ₹20,000 cost in this instance, considering the circumstances placed before it. But Justice Krishna made it abundantly clear that this indulgence should not be misunderstood as tolerance for future lapses.
The judge remarked:
“Don’t do it ever again, and have the decency to pay the cost.”
