The Supreme Court cautioned lawyers against assuming that filing an adjournment slip automatically postpones proceedings. Stressing that only the Bench decides adjournments, the Court directed advocates to remain fully prepared to argue unless an adjournment is expressly granted by the Court.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday cautioned members of the Bar against assuming that the filing of an adjournment slip automatically results in the postponement of a case. The Court made it clear that the decision to grant or refuse an adjournment rests exclusively with the Bench and that advocates must remain fully prepared to argue their matters unless the Court expressly orders otherwise.
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan delivered the remarks while hearing a matter in which counsel for one of the parties sought to avoid arguments on the ground that the respondents had already circulated an adjournment slip. Rejecting the assumption that the matter stood automatically deferred, the Bench underscored that an adjournment request is merely a request and not a matter of right.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case need not be argued because the respondents had already moved an adjournment slip seeking postponement of the hearing. Justice Amanullah immediately clarified that the filing of such a slip does not by itself postpone judicial proceedings.
Addressing the counsel, the Judge observed:
“Please counsel. It is upto us whether or not we allow adjournment. You have to come prepared and argue. If we allow only then adjourned. This is a message to the bar.”
The Court thereby reminded advocates that they must appear before the Bench fully prepared to argue every listed matter unless and until an adjournment is specifically granted by judicial order.
The Bench emphasized that applications or slips seeking adjournment cannot be treated as automatic passes to avoid hearings. Instead, it reiterated that the discretion to postpone proceedings belongs entirely to the Court after considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
The observations underline a long-standing judicial principle that litigants and lawyers cannot presume that a request for adjournment will necessarily be accepted. The Supreme Court’s remarks also serve as a reminder that unnecessary adjournments contribute significantly to judicial delays and affect the timely disposal of pending cases.
Following the Court’s observations, counsel for the petitioner requested that the matter be taken up on another date. Initially, the Bench indicated that it could accommodate the matter later the same day by placing it at the end of the day’s board. However, counsel requested that the hearing instead be adjourned to another working day.
Responding to this request, Justice Amanullah remarked:
“Today also is a day.”
The observation reflected the Court’s expectation that listed matters should ordinarily proceed on the scheduled date unless compelling circumstances justify postponement.
Although the Bench expressed its disapproval of treating adjournment slips as automatic grounds for postponement, it ultimately exercised its judicial discretion to defer the matter. The Court directed that the case be listed for hearing during the following week. However, before adjourning the proceedings, the Bench reiterated its broader message to the legal fraternity that filing an adjournment slip does not relieve advocates of their responsibility to be fully prepared to argue the case.
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly expressed concern over the growing practice of seeking routine adjournments, observing that unnecessary delays adversely affect the justice delivery system and contribute to mounting case backlogs. The Supreme Court has on several occasions stressed that adjournments should remain exceptions rather than the norm and should be granted only where genuine and unavoidable circumstances exist.
Courts have consistently held that repeated requests for postponement not only prolong litigation but also increase costs for litigants and delay access to justice. The latest observations by the Bench of Justice Amanullah and Justice Mahadevan reinforce this principle by making it clear that advocates cannot assume that merely circulating an adjournment slip will automatically postpone judicial proceedings.
Instead, lawyers are expected to attend court fully prepared, leaving it to the Bench to determine whether the interests of justice warrant granting additional time in a particular case.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE