Delhi High Court Criticises Systemic Adjournment Culture
Source:The Hindu ↗
Why It Matters
Judicial pendency is a chronic issue in the Indian governance framework. The 'culture of adjournments' highlights systemic behavioural and procedural bottlenecks in the justice delivery system. This is highly relevant for GS Paper 2 (Functioning of the Judiciary) and GS Paper 4 (Professional Ethics and Work Culture).
Summary
The Delhi High Court strongly criticized the widespread "culture of adjournments" within the Indian legal system, observing that adjournments are routinely requested under the mistaken belief that courts will automatically grant them. While waiving a ₹20,000 cost initially imposed on a lawyer for non-appearance, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna expressed hope that the prevailing attitude would change to ensure efficient justice delivery. The observation aligns with recent statements by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and the Supreme Court, cautioning lawyers—including senior advocates—against seeking adjournments unless strictly necessary. This issue underscores the broader challenges of judicial pendency and the urgent need for reforms in professional legal ethics and court procedures to guarantee speedy justice for litigants.
Key Points
- The Delhi High Court criticized the casual approach of advocates toward seeking case adjournments, terming it a problematic 'culture of adjournments'.
- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that lawyers often harbour a 'misplaced expectation' that adjournment requests will be granted simply for the asking.
- This judicial observation mirrors recent statements by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, who urged lawyers to avoid seeking adjournments unless strictly necessary to combat judicial delays.
- The Supreme Court has explicitly clarified that the involvement of a senior advocate is not a valid justification for delaying or adjourning a hearing.
- Addressing this professional culture is crucial for reducing the vast pendency of cases in India and ensuring citizens' right to speedy justice.
Important Terms
Culture of Adjournments
The habitual practice of frequently deferring court proceedings, often misused by litigants and lawyers to intentionally delay case resolution and stall the judicial process.
UPSC context
GS Paper II: Judiciary/Governance; tests understanding of factors causing judicial delays and their impact on the poor.
Judicial Pendency
The accumulated backlog of unresolved cases across various levels of the judiciary, currently exceeding 5 crore cases in India, affecting the efficiency of justice delivery.
UPSC context
GS Paper II: Governance; critical for discussing challenges in the Indian legal system and 'Justice Delayed is Justice Denied'.
Judicial Reforms
Systemic changes aimed at improving the speed, transparency, and accessibility of the legal system, including technological integration and filling judicial vacancies.
UPSC context
GS Paper II: Polity; relates to measures like e-Courts and All India Judicial Services (AIJS).
Professional Ethics
The moral principles and rules of conduct, primarily governed by the Bar Council of India, that guide the behavior and responsibilities of legal practitioners.
UPSC context
GS Paper IV: Ethics, Integrity, and Aptitude; tests the application of ethical standards in professional legal practice.
Right to Speedy Justice
A fundamental right derived from Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty), as recognized by the Supreme Court in the Hussainara Khatoon case.
UPSC context
GS Paper II: Constitution; tests awareness of evolved fundamental rights and judicial pronouncements.
High Court
The highest judicial authority in a State or Union Territory, established under Article 214 of the Indian Constitution, with original, appellate, and writ jurisdictions.
UPSC context
GS Paper II: Polity; focuses on the structure and functioning of the integrated Indian judiciary.
Prelims Trap
The Constitution explicitly guarantees the Right to a Speedy Trial under Article 21.
The Right to a Speedy Trial is an implicit right interpreted from Article 21 by the Supreme Court (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979), not explicitly written in the text.
Static Concepts Connected
What is the statutory position on adjournments in Indian procedural law?
- Civil cases: The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) restricts the number of adjournments granted to a party to a maximum of three times during the hearing of a suit.
- Criminal cases: The BNSS mandates day-to-day trial proceedings; an advocate's engagement in another court is explicitly rejected as a valid ground for adjournment.
How is the Right to Speedy Trial constitutionally and institutionally protected?
- Fundamental Right: It is recognized as an implicit fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) via the Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) judgment.
- Institutional monitoring: The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) provides real-time tracking of India's 5-crore pending cases to monitor bottlenecks and improve judicial efficiency.
Cross-Topic Patterns
Judicial Pendency & Legal Ethics
The 'culture of adjournments' bridges GS-2 (Judiciary) and GS-4 (Professional Ethics), highlighting how the conduct of the bar directly impacts the fundamental right to a speedy trial for litigants.
E-Governance and Justice Delivery
Adjournment delays highlight the necessity of the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and Phase III of the e-Courts project in leveraging real-time case data for judicial accountability.
GS-2 Mains will likely test the 'culture of adjournments' linking new BNSS procedural limits, legal ethics, and the massive pendency crisis.
Linked PYQs · 4
Linked PYQs · 4
- 2023MainsGS2
Who are entitled to receive free legal aid? Assess the role of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in rendering free legal aid in India.
- 2025MainsGS4
It is said that for an ethical work culture, there must be code of ethics in place in every organisation. To ensure value-based and compliance-based work culture, what suitable measures would you adopt in your work place?
- 2021PrelimsGS1
With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements : 1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India. 2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 2025MainsGS2
Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.
