Editorial: Supreme Court’s move on adjournments signals push for faster justice
The Supreme Court’s order tightening rules on adjournment could be a turning point in tackling India’s massive case backlog and restoring faith in the judiciary
It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. This axiom is particularly true in the Indian context. The pendency of cases in courts is a huge legacy issue in the country. A steady rise in arrears, regardless of periodic increases in judicial strength, has been a constant phenomenon since Independence. One of the major reasons responsible for the huge pendency is the thriving culture of adjournments. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s latest order tightening the rules on adjournment is a welcome move that could go a long way in improving judicial efficiency and reducing procedural delays. The apex court has drawn a clear line between necessity and convenience by restricting adjournments to truly exceptional circumstances, such as bereavement or serious health issues. Equally significant is the emphasis on transparency and accountability: parties must now disclose specific reasons and the number of prior adjournments. This is expected to curb frequent deferment. Currently, the deep-rooted culture of adjournments prolongs the agony of litigants and perpetuates the cycle of backlog. The pendency of cases in Indian courts crossed the 5-crore mark in 2024. These include over 4.4 crore cases in district and tehsil courts and around 64 lakh in high courts. Over 92,000 cases are pending in the Supreme Court. Frequent adjournments on flimsy grounds have been the bane of the justice delivery system. Hearings are repeatedly deferred, and litigants are left waiting for years, sometimes decades, for closure.
At present, courts frequently grant multiple adjournments beyond the prescribed limit, slowing down the process of administering justice and putting a strain on both courts and litigants. Moreover, the legal system in the country is neither pocket-friendly nor easily affordable, and requires investment of money, time and effort. The majority of those seeking judicial relief belong to the middle-class. In such circumstances, delays impose a substantial financial burden on citizens and erode public confidence in the judiciary. The apex court’s circular acknowledges this reality and introduces appropriate procedural changes. It emphasises that adjournments should not be sought as a routine. Additionally, the SC has barred consecutive adjournments without judicial scrutiny. Requests for adjournments must follow a prescribed format and be submitted through the designated email address. The procedural safeguards introduced by the top court are also significant. Mandatory advance notice to the opposing party, the opportunity to object, and strict deadlines for submissions ensure that adjournment requests are no longer unilateral or last-minute tactics. Such measures, aimed at promoting fairness while ensuring optimal use of the court’s valuable time, must be seen as part of broader judicial reforms. When cases outlive the litigants themselves, the system risks losing its constitutional and moral legitimacy. Ultimately, this stricter and more structured framework is about changing mindsets as much as procedures.
